ENGHSH-LIBRARY 
Return this book on or before the 
Latest Date stamped below. A 
charge is made on all overdue 
books. 


University of Illinois Library 


» 
i, 
a 


Digitized by the Internet Archive. 
in 2022 with funding from 
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign 


1s ://archive.org/details/learnedsocietiesOOstee_0 


COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY STUDIES IN ENGLISH 
AND COMPARATIVE LITERATURE 


LEARNED SOCIETIES AND 
ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


COLUMBIA 
UNIVERSITY PRESS 
SALES AGENTS 


New Yor: 
LEMCKE & BUECHNER 
30-32 West 27TH STREET 


LONDON : 
HUMPHREY MILFORD 
AMEN CorRNER, E.C. 


TORONTO : 
HUMPHREY MILFORD 
25 RicHMOND STREET, W. 


LEARNED SOCIETIES AND 
ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


IN GREAT BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES 


BY 


HARRISON ROSS STEEVES, Pu.D. 


INSTRUCTOR IN ENGLISH IN COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 


Pew Pork 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 
1913 


All rights reserved 


+s 


Copyright, 1913 


By CoLtumsBia UNIVERSITY PRESS 


Printed from type August, 1913 


PRESS OF 
THE NEW ERA PRINTING COMPANY 
LANCASTER, PA. 


ek This Monograph has been approved by the Depart- 
ment of English and Comparative Interature in Columbia 
University as a contribution to knowledge worthy of 


publication. 
A. H. THORNDIKE, 
Secretary. 


< e . 
\e yy ‘ 
a 0 es ‘Wye Y\ 


oly 
Ait 


TO 

JOHN FRANCIS STEEVES 
AND 

IMOGENE UPSON STEEVES 


vii 


ated 


4 

x UNCOE LA 1 dy 

PYAYT ARS Ga tee 
aa 


} 
7 i 


% 17 } 
Anu 
Se 
hl Aa 


ts f 
| mit au ‘ 


PREFACE 


The following chapters were written as a dissertation for 
the doctorate in the Department of English, Columbia Uni- 
versity. The work was originally planned as a bibliog- 
raphy, with a brief introduction covering the substance of 
the present volume; but with the growth of the introductory 
material, it beeame apparent that this alone would be suffi- 
cient to satisfy the special requirement. The volume is 
therefore plainly limited in its scope, and more or less 
arbitrarily planned and presented. 

The writer is under obligation to Professor George Philip 
Krapp, Professor William Peterfield Trent, and Professor 
Harry Morgan Ayres, of the Department of English at 
Columbia, all of whom have read the manuscript and given 
him generous and valuable help. He owes much also to the 
personal kindness of Mr. Frederic W. Erb, of the Columbia 
Library, and Mr. C. W. Kennedy, of the British Museum, 
and to the courtesy of the officials of the Library of Con- 
gress and the libraries at Yale and Cornell. 


oth 


hier bes 


oe Pa 


ui ad im i , "sy | rare y iy i pry a I ae f ne oe 


cite " ag 
cite . it 


‘ 5 f ” - , 
ae BM by Re nips Manet dry 
A ).¥ fe ¥ H wT ‘> “ rn ay fl me fad) 
otis aeop 4 j 3 ‘la op ek Paty i \ i. in 
bn e% ey 4 eee a ey oY Wy Tt fy it Ae '- a 
7 ve Ae ay we AL 
ee rape a vipa 


id ae 
a 5 ina 


vy is - 


As Ly ae 
a 
We 


pit 


' pie i 
cre! 


+ 


aN a 


abs 
1: ae 


if See 
any a ems 
Pitas) ej Ay ie Bae ae 
4 ca om ena 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER PAGE 

Introduction ...... ype AM POR Oe Fe PIA 2 els 0 xiii 

mee The Weldimtc at G2) so oar oe a cee 1 

“II. The Elizabethan Assembly of the Antiquaries.. 5 

Beetic LUG) meventcantia WEN LULY, «2700. sauce taiaiet 36 

PV hes Bishteenti Mentary.| 2. accuse ho ce ereunetee 60 
V. Nineteenth Century Book Clubs and General 

ETL DLIShine?: SOGIEbleN ay, vito. + pa ecole a aie 98 

Wie we hilological and Textesocieties. 2...020.. 2 sou 138 

MileeeA merican Societies: and. Olubs\<.. ..). Ne een 204 

ESOLOOTADIY Mowe vats vives atocuterer aie eee eee 218 

APE OEY gis oe: 5, «or caper etek 3 tie eaeade ate) eet cea a ee 231 


xi 


va 
Nyy rt 


Fe att Aa 
wa 7 ‘ 
4h SAD ar  ¥ 


“it 
yeu 


INTRODUCTION 


It is certain that one of the most important features of 
modern scholarship—as, indeed, of every progressive intel- 
lectual interest of to-day—is organization. The force of 
specialization in modern investigative methods, which is a 
distinct outgrowth of collective effort, is of course too ap- 
parent to require comment. Probably few of us, however, 
who have mentally noted the general efficiency of the liter- 
ary societies of to-day have stopped actually to measure the 
quantity and quality of their contributions to criticism and 
literary history. Originally devised to concentrate indi- 
vidual interests in the common purposes of study, they be- 
came eventually to a large extent the purveyors of patron- 
age for scholarship, increasing its remuneration, moral as 
well as material, and hence its efficiency; and in the last 
half century they have created a public interest in the 
products of conscientious research which has literally opened 
the storehouse of literary antiquity. It does not seem too 
much to say that the greater part of the scholarly accom- 
plishments in the field of literature during the last century 
was due to the activities of the learned societies. Scarcely 
a noted student of that period could wholly separate his 
success from that of the societies with which he was con- 
nected. Such bodies have made generally accessible a 
quantity and kind of material that could not under other 
conditions have reached a supporting public in anything 
like the same limited time. What is perhaps almost as 
important in the end, co-operation in these societies has 
given definition to method and conscience in scholarly 
pursuits. 


xili 


Xiv INTRODUCTION 


The society of to-day, however, is not the result of a day’s 
growth. The reliable and monumental products of a mod- 
ern text publication society owe much of their value to the 
recognition of the hasty, erring, and at times unconscien- 
tious scholarship of a mid-century specialists’ society; and 
these societies in turn represented a generally marked ad- 
vance in motive and accuracy of scholarship over the aristo- 
cratic book clubs of the early part of the century. Before 
all of these, of course, were the inevitable beginnings in 
private meetings among small numbers of students, with no 
defined scholarly policy, and no notion of general publi- 
cation. 

The beginnings of organized literary study, in fact, ante- 
date any records of a self-styled literary society. It is not 
necessary to assume that the development of the society idea 
as applied to literary investigation has been constantly pro- 
gressive and uninterrupted. As a matter of fact, there is 
really no precedent or tradition for such established co- 
operation before the beginning of the nineteenth century, 
though there are some interesting and at times important 
earlier instances of society activity, wholly isolated, which 
represent the incentives of the first generally recognized 
movements. The history of this important phase of nine- 
teenth century scholarship has not been, so far, connectedly 
presented. Hence the following volume, which will, it is 
hoped, indicate with an approach to finality the historical 
growth of these movements and their influences upon the 
scholarship of their day and our own. 


LEARNED SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH 
LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


CHAPTER I 


THE FIELD 


Organized literary scholarship in England, like prac- 
tically all phases of Renaissance intellectual activity, was a 
relatively late development. Indefinite as the immediate 
purposes of the academies of Renaissance Italy may at 
times seem to us, there can be no question as to the substan- 
tial value of such bodies in the development of current cul- 
ture. In England, however, we find no traces of an ama- 
teur literary organization until almost the last quarter of 
the sixteenth century, at the moment when Italian acad- 
emies were at the zenith of their popularity and effective- 
ness; and even then such organizations neither invited nor 
possessed public prominence. For this reason it is difficult 
to trace a continuous tradition of this sort through our most 
important literary period. The movement, exotic in itself, 
and unsupported by the general humanistic enthusiasm 
which gave life to the Italian academies, died almost in its 
birth and left no important effects to succeeding ages. What 
activity and interest we find in learned societies and acad- 
emies, then, from the early seventeenth to the late eighteenth 
century, can generally be considered a reflection of such 
activities and interests in Continental Europe; and the uni- 
form failure of all such projects throughout almost two 
centuries can be attributed to a lack of responsible native 

2 1 


2 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


enthusiasm in such movements. The function of societies 
of this kind during this period was in the main critical, and 
aspired to profound effect upon the destinies of the ver- 
nacular language and literature. For this reason the lack 
of vitality in academy movements in England is probably 
connected more or less directly with the practical failure of 
the well defined classical critical traditions and the theories 
of vernacular iwlustration then current on the Continent. 
At any rate, the two facts may be regarded as co-incident 
evidences of the popular temper of English literary scholar- 
ship at the time. With the greater utility and the sharper 
definition of purpose in the learned societies of the nine- 
teenth century, England comes well to the front; but before 
this time, we have only occasional and elusive traces of 
interest in the society idea. 

From the earliest period of their existence, the activity 
of so-called learned societies in the cultivation of English 
literary traditions, either creative or historical, is affected 
by a diversity of conceptions as to the function, scope, and 
methods of organized philological scholarship. These ac- 
knowledged differences in attitude and in forms of activity 
make it necessary to define the fields of interest of the many 
English literary learned societies. Definition and division 
on these grounds is not difficult, and is not necessarily arbi- 
trary. <A glance at the various early organized movements 
in the general direction of philological criticism and research 
shows three fairly well marked types of society. 

The first type, first in importance in its time because of 
its critical authority in Italy and France, is what is gen- 
erally known as the ‘‘academy,’’ the purpose of which is to 
establish canons of literary taste, and to facilitate and cor- 
rect the growth of the vernacular. Such an established 
academy has never really existed in England. Even the 
actual incorporation of the British Academy in 1902, after 


THE FIELD 3 


suggestion and pressure from the Council of the Royal 
Society,’ though it aimed in part to represent philological 
scholarship in England at the meetings of the International 
Association of Academies, could do no more in this direec- 
tion than to revive the acknowledgment that there never 
has been, and probably never can be, an authoritative acad- 
emy of English language and letters. The many efforts to 
found such an academy, however, extending over a century 
of critical scholarship from Bolton to Swift, form interest- 
ing history.’ 

The second type of philological society that I have chosen 
to distinguish from organizations of connected interests is 
in its general attitude rather closely allied with the first, 
but differs from it importantly in the fact that its aim is 
primarily creative, not objectively critical. There is, as far 
as I know, no class name given to this type; without com- 
promising the dignity of these usually small unions of lit- 
erary men, we might call them ‘‘authors’ clubs.’’ The first 
important society of this kind in England was of course the 
Areopagus, formed by Dyer, Greville, Harvey, Spenser and 
Sidney in 1579.5 Other examples readily suggest them- 
selves, as the Martinus Scriblerus Club, and Tennyson’s 
Apostles. In this kind of organization the interest in litera- 
ture is essentially personal—the interest of the artist in his 
own product, completed or projected. The field of literary 
study is the present, not the past. The obvious purpose of 
such a society is to outline policies of creative work; the 
concerns of the society are the plans of the individuals who 
form it; and however these interests may extend themselves 

1 Proceedings of the British Academy, 1903-1904, vii—ix. 

2The recurrence of these efforts is traced by Mr. B. 8. Monroe in 
his article, An English Academy, in Modern Philology, VIII, 107-122 

1910). 
3 J ae B. Fletcher, Areopagus and Pleiade, Journal of English 
and Germanic Philology, II, 429-453 (1898). 


4 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


into generalized theory, the bond of association is always 
that of the projected contact of the creative artist with his 
readers. 

Differing markedly from these two kinds of literary 
organization is what is generally called the ‘‘learned so- 
ciety’’ of letters. Here the objects are not creative, not 
individual, not didactic; they are historical and objective; 
they touch the past of literature, not the present or the 
future; in a word, they imply scholarship, not a priori crit- 
ical theory or the notions of literary artists. The object of 
such societies is to preserve literary monuments, to use them 
for the illumination of the national background, to culti- 
vate historical knowledge, to concentrate it by discussion, 
to diffuse it through publication. All the interests that I 
have indicated are not necessarily to be found in all the 
societies of this type; but as a point of certain distinction 
it is probably fair to say that few or none of the peculiar 
interests of the literary society are to be found in the acad- 
emies or the authors’ clubs. It is with the literary society, 
or the learned society of letters, that I propose to deal. 


CHAPTER II 


THE ELIZABETHAN SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES 


The most ancient of our literary societies—and probably 
the most ancient of all English learned societies—was the 
Assembly of the Antiquaries, founded by Matthew Parker, 
Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1572.1. The history of this 
foundation has been presented in large part by a number of 
extended references to the society. Thomas Smith’s life of 
Sir Robert Cotton, prefixed to his catalogue of the Cot- 
tonian Library and afterwards reprinted in a collection of 
biographies,” seems to be the fountain-head of historical 
information on the subject. From this account Hearne 
secured the material for his Collection of Curious Dis- 
courses,®? which in turn was utilized by Richard Gough, the 
author of the introduction to the first volume of the Archae- 
ologia.* Prof. Fliigel’s recent contribution to the history 
of the body is a reprint, with brief comment, of the pros- 
peetus for the incorporation of the society, probably pre- 
sented in 1589.5 This prospectus is fully digested in Smith’s 

1 Henry Spelman, English Works, 24 ed., 1727; Part b, 69-70. 

2Thomas Smith, Vita D. Roberti Cottoni; in Gryphius’s Vitae 
Selectae Quorundam Eruditissimorum ac Illustrium Virorum, 434- 
536, Vratislaviae, 1711. 

3 Thomas Hearne, A collection of curious Discourses, I, *iii-*viii, 
xi—xvii, lvii-lxi, II, 324-326, 421-449 (2d ed., 1775). 

4 [Richard Gough], An historical account of the Origin and Estab- « 
lishment of the Society of Antiquaries; Archaeologia, I, i-xxi (1777). 
This article, the authorship of which was unknown even to Joseph 
Hunter, who reworked the early history of the Society of Antiquaries 
in Archaeologia XXXII, is ascribed to Richard Gough by Nichols, in 
his Literary Anecdotes of the Eighteenth Century, VI, 297 (1812). 


5 Ewald Fligel, Die dlteste englische Akademie; Anglia, XXXII, 
261-268 (1909). 


5 


6 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


account of the society, and was printed substantially as a 
whole by Hearne. In reworking Smith’s memoir of the 
society, Hearne expanded the historical matter to some 
extent, and printed many of the papers read before the 
society, expressing his debt to Smith’s materials, where 
Smith had merely printed a representative number by 
titles. We see, then, that the bulk of the historical material 
was brought out by Smith, with some additions by Hearne. 
Smith, however, seems unfortunately to have been forgotten 
by most of those who have had occasion since Hearne’s 
time to write upon the society.® 

In all the historical accounts of this assembly its impor- 
tance in the general field of English scholarship has been 
obscured by the narrowness of the special interests of the 
writers upon the subject. All save Professor Fliigel are 
antiquaries pure and simple; and his purpose is confined to 
pointing out the scheme for the society’s incorporation as 
the earliest plan for the organization of an English academy.’ 
From the fact that most of the historical material relating 
to the society was originally brought out by antiquaries, we 
can feel reasonably certain that the nature of their interest 
in the body dominated their judgment of what was specially 


6 An independent sketch of this society appeared in William Oldys’s 
Life of Sir Walter Ralegh, prefixed to his edition of Ralegh’s His- 
tory of the World, 1736 (I, exxx—cxxxi). There are special reasons 
for considering this article separately; see post., 32, note. 

7Mr. Monroe (op. cit., 107) states that the society was actually 
chartered in 1589; but I can not find evidence, in the face of Smith’s 
express denial, to support this conclusion. Richard Carew, a member, 
writing to Sir Robert Cotton in 1605, shortly after the dissolution of 
the society, says: ‘‘I heard by my Brother, that in the late Queenes 
tyme it was lykelie to have received an establishment and extra- 
ordynarie favour from sundrie great personages’’ (Original Letters 
of Eminent Literary Men, Camden Society, 1843; 99). This passage 
seems to indicate clearly that the society never secured legal recogni- 
tion. 


THE ELIZABETHAN SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES 7 


important in its history. The selected papers published by 
Hearne are all concerned with architectural and numis- 
matic antiquities and miscellaneous evidences of social and 
political organization; philological inquiries, though repre- 
sented at times, are meager and only incidental. The re- 
stricted aims of the writers who have treated the activities 
of the society at greater or less length have tended, there- 
fore, to confine our impressions of its general importance. 
It seems, however, that we can not measure the full his- 
torical value of this organization by standards of judgment 
and interest as limited as those which have so far been 
applied. It is worth noting, in this connection, that no 
account down to the present writing has dealt adequately 
with one significant clue to the nature of the society’s 
concerns, and a most important test of its organic efficiency : 
that is, the effect which the personnel of the society must 
inevitably have had upon its activities. Furthermore, in 
an effort to trace the history of literary scholarship in this 
period we must not omit to recognize two well defined 
facts: that literary history then was only a vaguely dis- 
tinguished phase of antiquarian study, and that this fact 
itself is due to the natural failure to separate belles lettres 
from the literature of knowledge. It is hopeless for us to 
expect to find at this time clear literary conceptions of a 
race and a period which were only at that moment being 
brought within the field of investigative study. We have, 
it must be granted, no positive evidence of the existence of 
literary interests in this society; we have, however, no evi- 
dence which denies the possibility of such interests. Con- 
sidering, then, the obviously partial—and literally partial 
—historical remains which have descended to us, we must 
fall back upon what inferences are to be drawn from the 
evidence of its personnel. 

Archbishop Parker, the founder of the society, was an 


8 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


ardently industrious antiquarian, and, as his biographer, 
Strype, puts it, ‘‘a mighty collector of books.’’ His interest 
in English antiquity was of more than ordinarily practical 
value because it was measured by his intellectual responsi- 
bility to the church of which he was the appointed head. 
His chief concern with ancient English literature seems to 
have been to justify, by reference to old authorities on 
church history and ceremonial, the Anglican establishment. 
But his interest in secular history also was broad and gen- 
erous; and above all, he must be remembered for his timely 
and practical recognition of the urgent necessity of collect- 
ing ancient manuscripts, even though for narrower reasons 
than may move us to-day. An idea of how gravely immi- 
nent was the practical annihilation of quantities of manu- 
script records after the closing of the monasteries may be 
gained from Bishop Bale’s characteristically vigorous but 
convincing picture of their advancing fate.* It is interest- 
ing to find that Parker was Bale’s correspondent upon this 
very subject,® and that he endeavored for some years after 
Bale’s death to purchase his collections for permanent 
preservation, probably actually securing them in the end.?° 
Parker’s own collections of manuscripts were exceedingly 
extensive, and critically made. His ecclesiastical duties, as 
well as the mere magnitude of his ambition as a collector, 
prevented him from assembling personally the bulk of his 
library; but he employed for this purpose a number of 
travelling agents, including John Stow, Wiliam Lambarde, 

8 The Laboryouse Journey & serche of John Leylande, for Eng- 
landes Antiquitees, with declaracyons enlarged: by Johan Bale, 1549, 
Preface. 

9A Letter from Bishop Bale to Archbishop Parker, communicated 
by H. R. Luard; Cambridge Antiquarian Communications, III, 157- 
173 (1879). 


10 Correspondence of Matthew Parker, D.D., Ed. John Bruce and 
Thomas Thomason Perowne, 198, 287 (1853). 


THE ELIZABETHAN SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES 9 


and Stephen Batman, the last of whom alone is said to 
have gathered for the Archbishop 6700 volumes.*! Twenty- 
five volumes of historical manuscripts were presented by 
Parker in 1574 to the Cambridge University library ;?? the 
greater part of the library, however, was bequeathed by 
him to Corpus Christi, Cambridge, his own college."* 

This learned antiquary’s extraordinary importance as a 
library builder, however, scarcely exceeds his note as a 
powerful and intelligent patron of early English literary 
scholarship. It is umnecessary to quote contemporary 
eulogia on this point; suffice it to say that practically every 
antiquarian writer of his day had reason to express his 
indebtedness to Parker not alone for his collections, but for 
his encouragement and personal interest in work under 
way. His own household was from time to time opened to 
the students of his period, and he extended vitally necessary 
aid to the scholarly labors of Foxe, Lambarde, and his own 
secretary Joscelyn.?# 

It was presumably with John Joscelyn’s assistance that 
he issued the first Anglo-Saxon text in Anglo-Saxon types, 
eut by his order for his printer, John Day. This volume 
was A Testimonie of Antiqvitie, shewing the auncient fayth 
in the Church of England touching the sacrament of the 
body and bloude of the Lord, published according to 
Strype’s ‘‘guess’’ in 1566, and according to Wanley in 

11 John Strype, The Life and Acts of Matthew Parker, II, 497-8, 
517 (1821). The untiring activity of Parker in hunting down literary 
relics can be seen in numerous notices by Strype: I, 419, 466-7, 509, 
511, 522-5, II, 497-500, 515-20, 

12 I[bid., II, 410-11. 

13 The remarkable historical value of this collection in the field of 
early English literature may be judged from Dr. Montague Rhodes 
James’s The Sources of Archbishop Parker’s Collection of MSS at 
Corpus Christi College, Cambridge (1899). 

14 Strype, op. cit., II, 500, 502-3, 514-9. 

15 Ibid., II, 514. 


10 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


1567.16 Whether Parker was or was not the responsible 
editor of this work—and there are critical opinions that 
Joscelyn, or even Foxe, was principally instrumental in 
publishing it*7—there can be no doubt that the Archbishop’s 
connection with the publication was one of commanding 
supervision. The volume includes in its contents Aelfric’s 
Paschal Homily, two epistles of Aelfric, the Creed, the 
Lord’s Prayer, and some scriptural passages, all in the old 
tongue, and employed to support Anglican views on the 
doctrine of transubstantiation. 

Parker’s subsequent publications of the materials of early 
English history were the Flores Historiarum, wrongly 
assigned by his predecessors to a ‘‘Matthew of West- 
minster,’’!® in 1567-70; Matthew Paris’s Chronica Majora, 
1571; Asser’s life of Alfred, Aelfredi Regis Res Gestae, 
1574;7° and Thomas Walsingham’s Historia Anglicana, 

16 Jbid., I, 472; Humphrey Wanley, Antiquae literaturae septen- 
trionalis Liber alter, seu Catalogus historico-criticus, 326 (1705). 
It is worth noting that Strype (II, 448) observes that some pieces of 
ancient documentary evidence in Parker’s Defence of Priests’ Mar- 
riages, 1562, were ‘‘set down in the Saxon tongue.’’ This may de- 
prive the Testimonie of its claim to be the first printed Anglo-Saxon 
work. 

17See R. M. White’s preface to his edition of the Ormulum, I, 
vili-ix, note (1878). 

18 Sir Frederic Madden has established the fact that the greater 
portion of the Flores Historiarum is an abridgment of Matthew 
Paris’s Chronica Majora, probably prepared under Paris’s direction. 
See Matthaei Parisiensis Historia Anglorum, ed. Sir Frederic Mad- 
den, 3 v., 1866-9; I, xx—xxviii. Though Parker’s edition of 1570, 
issued after the discovery of manuscripts which showed the edition of 
1567 to be incomplete, did not correct the error in ascription, Parker 
evidently recognized the error by the following year (op. cit., xxxii). 
The mistake, however, was generally prevalent until Madden pointed 
it out anew. 

19 The Asser, although a Latin text, was printed in Parker’s Anglo- 
Saxon types for the purpose of encouraging acquaintance with the 
character in which the Anglo-Saxon monuments were for the most 
part written. 


THE ELIZABETHAN SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES y He 


1574.29 Parker’s claim to special recognition for these 
services to learning is simply that of having set an example. 
It is very well known that his texts are not at all faithful to 
his manuscripts, and this in spite of his direct assertion in 
the preface to Asser’s Alfred that he ‘‘never added any- 
thing of his own, nor diminished from the copy; but ex- 
pressed, to a word, everything as he found them in the 
originals.’’?t Modern criticism has not been inclined to 
generosity toward Parker’s faults as an editor, though it 
should be admitted by his critics that Elizabethan concep- 
tions of textual sacredness were by no means as well defined 
as they are to-day.”? 


20 Mr. Sidney Lee in his biography of John Stow, Dict. Nat. Biog., 
LV, 4, assumes that Stow himself was the responsible editor of 
Parker’s texts of the Flores Historiarum, Matthew Paris, and Thomas 
of Walsingham. His opinion, I believe, may be traced to a misin- 
terpretation of Stow’s statement that among the manuscripts which 
Parker printed were those mentioned, ‘‘all which he received of my 
hands’’ (Annales or generall Chronicle of England, continued and 
augmented by Edmond Howes, 1615; 679). Both Strype and Sir 
Frederic Madden have interpreted this phrase more reasonably as 
indicating merely that Parker used Stow’s manuscripts. 

21 Strype’s translation from Parker, II, 501. 

22 The inaccuracy of Parker’s texts has been pointed out from a 
period almost within reach of his own lifetime. Not one of his texts 
is wholly free from blame; and most of them have been submitted to 
scathing criticism. See Thomae Walsingham, Historia Anglicana, 
ed. Thomas Riley, 1864, I, ix—xii; Matthaei Parisiensis, Historia 
Anglorum, ed. Sir Frederic Madden, 1866-9, I, xix—xxxvii; Matthaei 
Parisiensis, Chronica Majora, ed. Henry Richards Luard, 1872-83, 
II, xxii-xxvili; Asser’s Life of Alfred, ed. William Henry Steven- 
son, 1904, xvii-xxi. These references enable us without doubt to 
estimate fairly the value of Parker’s editorial work: in the light of 
modern scholarship, his texts are practically useless. The fact is 
indisputable, but it is far from determining with finality Parker’s 
importance as a scholar; for as against the evidence of his texts, in 
itself so strongly condemnatory, we have these points to consider. In 
the first place, it has not been demonstrated that he was personally 


12 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


An old English publication for which the Archbishop was 
less directly responsible than for the works already referred 
to was the Anglo-Saxon version of the Gospels put forth by 
John Foxe in 1571. Foxe states in his preface that it was 
at Parker’s instance and at his cost that the publication was 
undertaken. 

Upon William Camden, one of the original members of 
the society, it is, of course, unnecessary to enlarge. Though 


responsible for his texts; it has been ever since Parker’s time a mat- 
ter of dispute whether he was the actual overseer of these publica- 
tions. As to Asser’s Alfred we have more or less definite and reliable 
evidence: Hearne, whose opinion and whose command of literary 
tradition are, when his prejudices are not involved, generally to be 
depended upon, says without qualification that Joscelyn was respon- 
sible for the editing of this volume (Remarks and Collections, VII, 
240). On the question of Parker’s responsibility we have no evidence 
touching his issues of the Flores Historiarum and Paris’s Chronica 
Majora; but what is apparently true of the Asser is quite conceivably 
true of all the other publications which appeared under his auspices. 
Further than this, no evidence other than the attribution of these 
works to the editorship of Parker remains to convince us that he was 
actually capable of performing the textual work on them; Joscelyn 
and Lambarde, on the other hand, have left substantial memorials of 
their scholarly attainments. Miss E. T. Bradley makes the general 
claim in behalf of Joscelyn that Parker in all probability received 
eredit for much of his secretary’s editorial work (Dict. Nat. Biog., 
XXX, 205), and both Madden and Stevenson seem disposed at least 
to admit the plausibility of this view (Matthaei Parisiensis, Historia 
Anglorum, I, xxxvi-xxxvii; Asser’s Alfred, xvii). These facts may 
explain Parker’s asseveration of his fidelity to his manuscript, rever- 
ently echoed by Strype (Life and Acts of Parker, II, 501). If we 
may assume that Parker was not spared sufficient leisure from his 
ecclesiastical and political duties to supervise the preparation of his 
texts, he may well have been ignorant of what his editors, not bred in 
a tradition of scholarly ethics, and almost certainly incapable of 
understanding the weight of their offence, were actually doing with 
the texts. In any event, there is apparently sufficient doubt in the 
whole matter to make it dangerous to pronounce an unqualified judg- 
ment of Parker’s guilt. 


THE ELIZABETHAN SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES 13 


his interest in literature for its own sake was certainly less 
than for its service to his historical and antiquarian labors, 
still the mere extent of his correspondence with learned 
men of letters and the weight of his incidental services to 
literary and linguistic scholarship give him unquestioned 
importance in the domain of philological study. His most 
specific claim to recognition as a student of letters lies in 
the publication in 1602-3 of his collection of six early Eng- 
lish-Latin chroniclers.2* This publication, dedicated to 
Fulke Greville, who had secured for Camden his appoint- 
ment as Clarenceux King of Arms, though valuable for its 
time, was hastily done, the erratic text of Parker’s former 
publications, for example, having apparently been followed 
without any attempt at corrected readings.** The work is 
not merely open to criticism on this ground, however, for 
it may be remembered that it was in this edition of Asser’s 
life of Alfred that the notorious interpolation concerning 
the foundation of Oxford before the time of Alfred ap- 
peared, the substance of which had already been used by 
Camden in the fifth edition (1600) of his Britannia.”®> In 
spite of the great unreliability of Camden’s work as an 
editor, however, we must concede to him, as to Parker, 
credit for his pioneer labors. Camden’s interest in the 

23 Anglica, Normannica, Hibernica, Cambrica, a veteribus scripta: 
... plerique nune primum in lucem editi, ex bibliotheca Guilielmi 
Camdeni, Francofurti, 1603. 

24 Asser’s Life of King Alfred together with the Annals of Saint 
Neots, edited by William Henry Stevenson, 1904, xxii. 

25 For the history of the controversy as to the authenticity of this 
passage see James Parker, The Early History of Oxford, 1885, 39-45, 
and Asser’s Life of Alfred, ed. William Henry Stevenson, 1904, 
Xxili—xxviili. Whether or not Camden was the actual author of the 
passage—and there seems adequate reason to believe that it may 
have been forged by ‘‘Long Henry’’ Savile (op. cit., and Dict. Nat. 
Biog., L, 369-70)—there seems to be little doubt that Camden’s use 
of the passage was purposely misleading, if not altogether dishonest. 


14 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


society was obviously, and unlike Parker’s, purely anti- 
quarian. Indeed, it might not be too much to assume that 
the ardor and the engaging personality of Camden did 
much to determine the trend of the tastes of the later mem- 
bers, and hence to color the interests of the society as a 
body. 

William Lambarde’s connection with the society was due 
very evidently to his association with Archbishop Parker. 
He was one of the earliest accomplished scholars in Anglo- 
Saxon, having studied the language with Laurence Nowell, 
probably the pioneer in the field.2* His general contribu- 
tions to linguistic scholarship are acknowledged to have 
been great, though his labors of this kind are obscured by 
the fact that they are usually incidental to a wider interest 
in English antiquity. His antiquarian works were his 
"Apxo.ovouia, published in 1568, a digest of Anglo-Saxon 
laws, and his Perambulation of Kent, 1576, the first printed 
county history. 

Sir Robert Bruce Cotton joined the group in 1590, after 
the range of its interests had been, we may assume, definitely 
circumscribed. It has been suggested by Mr. Sidney Lee?’ 
that Cotton’s antiquarian interests may have been aroused 
during his years at Westminster School, where Camden was 
at that time master. Cotton’s importance to literary 
scholarship rests chiefly in his formation of the remarkable 
library which has for more than two centuries been in the 
possession of the English nation. This library made him 
practically indispensable to the historians and literary stu- 
dents of his day, and it probably constituted the attraction 
that toward the close of Elizabeth’s reign made his home 
the meeting place of the society.28 His extraordinary gen- 

26 Anthony 4 Wood, Athenae Oxonienses, edited by Philip Bliss, 
1813-20, I, 426. 


27 Dict. Nat. Biog., XII, 308. 
28 Richard Carew, The Survey of Cornwall, 1723, xiii. 


THE ELIZABETHAN SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES 15 


erosity in putting his materials at the disposal of the scholars 
of his day and his general interest in literary work are 
seen in an illuminating series of letters from Verstegen, 
Speed, Camden, Usher, Selden, and others.?® Cotton him- 
self never produced a work which did justice to his unusual 
erudition, though an exceptional breadth of intellectual 
interest is seen in his concern for the occupations of his 
friends. The Cottonian Library is today, as it was in his 
own time, probably the most notable collection of original 
materials for national and literary history collected by a 
single individual. 

John Stow, the annalist and publisher of Chaucer, and 
Francis Thynne, Lancaster Herald, and son of William 
Thynne, publisher of the first collected edition of Chaucer, 
were also members of the society. Stow’s purely literary 
scholarship was not particularly notable, as, rightly or 
wrongly, he has taken the blame for introducing into his 
1561 edition of Chaucer a quantity of non-Chaucerian 
material that was, whether he intended it or not, accepted 
by his contemporaries as really Chaucerian.*° Be the case 
as it may, the edition is not now regarded as a remarkable 
one; so we may not be niggardly if we refuse him credit 
for anything beyond the mere labor of publication—which, 
after all, is a tangible credit in itself. As an annalist and 
historian, and incidentally to this, a continuator with 
Francis Thynne of Holinshed’s Chromecles, his place in 
literary history possesses some additional importance. For 
our purposes, however, an item of interest possibly more 
significant than any of these is a reflection of his predilec- 
tions as an antiquarian student of literature found in a 

29 Original Letters of eminent literary Men, 1843, 102-103, 107- 
113, 123-145. 

80 Prof. Skeat has discussed the questions relating to Stow’s edi- 


tion of Chaucer in his Chaucerian and other Pieces, 1897, ix—xiv, and 
in The Chaucer Canon, 1900, 117-126. 


16 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


contemporary record. In 1568, complaint was made to 
the Eeclesiastical Commission that ‘‘John Stow, tailor, the 
same that was the laborious collector of the Historical 
Antiquities of London and England,’’ was, under pretence 
of gathering materials for his labors, assembling a collec- 
tion of papistical writings. Accordingly descent was made, 
under Bishop Grindal’s direction, upon Stow’s house, and 
a memorandum was prepared of the books found in his 
possession which might justly merit suspicion. The omis- 
sions from the inventory, however, are of considerably 
greater interest than the inventory itself, for a significant 
section is lumped in the phrase ‘‘a great sort of foolish 
fabulous books of old print, as of Sir Degory Tryamour, 
&e. a great parcel also of old written English chronicles.’’+ 
In other words, Stow was very evidently a Bannatyne, a 
Collins, a Percy, or a Sir Walter Scott of his own century. 
This is a point of interest that centers in him personally a 
responsibility generally assumed by our nineteenth century 
societies—the conservation of antiquarian and popular 
literature. Another indication of his importance as a 
collector and student of pure literature is his own, let us 
suppose, true, assertion that he owned most of the manu- 
seripts of Lydgate the list of which he gave Speght for his 
1598 edition of Chaucer.*? 

Francis Thynne was, at least potentially, and for his day, 
a really great Chaucerian scholar. He apparently in- 
herited his love for Chaucer from his father. What makes 
him specially interesting to us in this connection is his 

31 John Strype, Life and Acts of Edmund Grindal, 1821, 184-185, 
516-519. 

32 Eleanor Prescott Hammond, Chaucer, a bibliographical Manual, 
1908; 124. Miss Hammond quotes the heading of Stow’s list: ‘‘A 
Catalogue of translations and Poeticall deuises . . . done by John 
Lidgate monke of Bury, whereof some are extant in Print, the residue 


in the custody of him that first caused this Siege of Thebes to be 
added to these works of G. Chaucer.’’ 


THE ELIZABETHAN SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES 17 


eritical essay occasioned by the faults of Speght’s issue of 
Chaucer in 1598,** an edition, apparently, which antici- 
pated one which Thynne himself was projecting, probably 
largely from the twenty-five odd Chaucerian manuscripts 
which he says his father had left him.** His displeasure 
seems also to have touched Stow at this time,*> probably 
because Stow had given Speght material aid in the prepa- 
ration of this new edition. Thynne’s criticisms of Speght’s 
edition, sour though they may be, are in the main apposite; 
and, as Furnivall pointed out,** in only four important 
instances in the essay can we find errors of magnitude 
either of fact or inference. Indeed, Thynne’s historical, 
genealogical, and heraldic information is applied with at 
times surprising acuteness to the careless assumptions in 
Speght’s biographical and interpretative material. At the 
end of this work Thynne announces that he himself con- 
templates a new edition of Chaucer,*”? to be worked over, 
we may be sure, with the same impartial critical sense that 
he displays in condemning the spurious attributions that 
are found in the editions published by his father.** The 
Animaduersions do, in fact, show convincing editorial apti- 
tude on Thynne’s part; and we must agree with Furnivall 
that if Thynne had actually carried out his intention, much 
of the necessary research on the poet in the eighteenth and 
nineteenth centuries might have been saved his subsequent 
editors. Speght, apparently under conviction, appears to 
have taken Thynne’s corrections kindly, and was evidently 

33 Francis Thynne, Animaduersions vppon the Annotacions and Cor- 
rections of some imperfections of impressiones of Chaucers workes. 
Edited by G. H. Kingsley. Revis’d edition by F. J. Furniwvall. Early 
English Text Society [and Chaucer Society], 186[7]5. 

34 Op. cit., 11-12. 

35 Tbid., ciii. 

36 Ibid., cii. 

st Ibid., 75. 

38 Tbid., 69. 

3 


18 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


inclined to solicit Thynne to undertake the edition he had 
had in prospect; but with the demand for a second edition, 
Speght appropriated Thynne’s criticisms, and actually 
enlisted his personal assistance, producing a greatly im- 
proved edition in 1602.°° 

Sir Henry Spelman joined the Antiquaries in 1593, at 
about the beginning of what seems to have been their 
period of greatest activity and regularity. It seems, how- 
ever, that he was not specially active in the society at this 
time, aS no communication from him to the society is 
referred to by Hearne. Spelman himself recorded the 
discontinuance of the meetings of the society during this 
period,*® but there can be no reasonable question as to the 
activity of the organization at this time, since Richard 
Carew apparently believed it to be in existence in 1605,* 
and the bulk of Hearne’s Discourses covers the years 1599 
to 1604. Certainly Spelman can not have been in touch 
with the society during the years when he considered its 
meetings in abeyance. The society did, however, cease its 
meetings about the year 1604; and the first and last appeal 
for its reorganization was made, it appears, by Spelman 
himself in 1614.42 Spelman’s interest in Anglo-Saxon 
studies led him to found the first university lectureship in 
this branch, which was established at Cambridge in 1639, 
after correspondence with Abraham Wheelocke, who be- 
came the first incumbent of the office.t® The lectureship 
lapsed, it is generally assumed, because of the sequestra- 
tion of the Spelman estates during the Revolution, but not 
until William Somner had secured its stipend, after Whee- 

39 The Workes of ovr ancient and learned English Poet, Geffrey 
Chaveer, newly printed, London, 1602, (‘‘To the readers’’). 

40 Spelman, op. cit., 69. 

41 Original Letters of eminent literary Men, 1843; 98. 

42 Spelman, op. cit., 69. 

43 Original Letters of eminent literary Men, 154-157, 161. 


THE ELIZABETHAN SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES 19 


locke’s death in 1653, to complete the publication of his 
Anglo-Saxon dictionary. Spelman’s position as the most 
conspicuous patron of Anglo-Saxon scholarship in his cen- 
tury is noteworthy, and he was himself a very industrious 
and acute student in his favorite field. 

Two other scholars of importance, we are told by Thomas 
Smith, and by no other authority on the subject, may be 
included in the catalogue of the society’s members: John 
Selden, and William 1’Isle of Wilbraham.** Selden’s vast 
learning was directed twice to the furtherance of early 
English studies: in his publication of EHadmer’s Historia 
Novorum in 1628, and in his collaboration in the editorial 
work upon Sir Roger Twysden’s Historiae Anglicanae 
Scriptores X in 1653. For our purposes it is also worth 
noting that the historical illustrations to Drayton’s 
Polyolbion were from Selden’s hand. His edition of 
Eadmer, though satisfactory, has been superseded for the 
reason that the Cottonian manuscript from which Selden 
printed the work is clearly not its latest authoritative 
recension.*® His considerable share in Twysden’s Scrip- 
tores includes a eritical preface, ‘‘Ad lectorem, Ioannes 
Seldenus, de scriptoribus hisce nune primum editis,’’ 
(i-xlviii), and probably general services recognized in 
Twysden’s preface to the reader. Again in Selden too we 
find an interesting anticipation of the work of the collector 
of popular literature; for in his library, which reflects, 
throughout, extraordinary refinement of scholarly taste, 
we find a single curious volume of typical medieval popular 

44 Thomas Smith, op. cit., 455-6, ‘‘ De caeteris sociis, praecipue post 
annum hujus seculi quintum, admissis, nondum constat; licet de 
Gulielmo Lisle, Henrico Spelmanno, & Joanne Seldeno non dubitan- 
dum videtur; nee de aliis hariolari libet.’’ It must be remembered 
that Selden could have been only twenty years old when the society 
discontinued its meetings in 1604, 


46 Kadmert Historia Novorum in Anglia, Edited by Martin Rule, 
1884; xiv. 


20 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


literature, including ‘‘ Richard Cuer de Lyon, Syr Bevis of 
Hampton, Syr Degore, Syr Tryamoure,’’ and kindred 
titles.*7 

William 1|’Isle, a scholar recluse of acknowledged attain- 
ments in his day, did little that appealed to the public eye. 
His acquaintance, however, embraced the most conspicuous 
students of his time, both English and foreign. He re- 
printed, in the second edition of his Treatise on the Old 
and New Testament, 1623, the pre-Norman materials used 
by Parker in his Testimonie of Antiquitie. L’Isle contem- 
plated an issue of Aelfric’s scriptural translations and an 
Anglo-Saxon Psalter, but died in 1637, before his projects 
were realized.*§ 

Other members of the society of less immediate interest 
to the literary antiquary were Richard Carew of Anthony, 
the Cornish glossarist, Sir John Davies, the poet, and 
William Hakewill, executor of the will of Sir Thomas 
Bodley. 

The weighty influence of the members of this society 
upon the development of Anglo-Saxon scholarship is no- 
where more aptly illustrated than in the direct and in- 
direct connection of its members with early Anglo-Saxon 
lexicography. The date of the earliest efforts to compile a 
general vocabulary of Anglo-Saxon is obscured by the fact 
that none of the early dictionaries were published. There 
can be no doubt that the first, now preserved in the 
Bodleian Library, was by Laurence Nowell. This diction- 
ary came into the hands of Lambarde, and it is plain, from 
a fore-word that Lambarde attached to it, that he contem- 
plated publishing it. The note outlines an introductory 
chapter on the history of the English language, to be illus- 

47 William Dunn Macray, Annals of the Bodleian Library, Oxford, 
A. D. 1598-A. D. 1867, 1868; 86-87. Was this volume in Stow’s 


possession? See ante, 14. 
48H. F. Heath, in Dict. Nat. Biog., XXXIII, 345. 


THE ELIZABETHAN SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES 21 


trated by references from the period of the pre-Norman 
laws and the Saxon Chronicle down to Gower and Chaucer, 
‘“by the which, and such like it maye appeare, how, and by 
what steppes our language is fallen from the old Inglishe, 
and drawen nearer to the Frenche. This may well be light- 
ened by shorte examples from theise bookes, and is meet to 
be discovered when this Dictionarie shall be emprinted.’’° 
The note is signed by Lambarde, with the date, 1570. It 
may be significant that this date is six years before the 
death of Nowell; the fact that the lexicon was in Lam- 
barde’s hands before Nowell’s death may lend color to a 
possible assumption, supported by the known intimate 
association of Nowell and Lambarde in their studies, that 
Lambarde himself had some share in the compilation. 
Curiously enough, Hearne assigns the dictionary to Lam- 
barde, not to Nowell,®° but it seems clear that this is an 
error due to his misunderstanding of the title of the 
manuscript (Dictionarium Saxonico-Anglicum Laurentii 
Noelli & ab Auctore Guil. Lambardo dono datum.), and the 
note by Lambarde. Lambarde did, however, compile a 
glossary for his “Apxavovopia. 

Joscelyn, Strype records, was ‘‘earnestly excited’’ by 
Archbishop Parker ‘‘to digest his collections into a Lexicon 
for the public; which he accordingly intended to do, but 
was by death prevented.’*1 A manuscript copy of this 
dictionary in the Cottonian Library is entered by Wanley®? 
as ‘‘Codex chartaceus in Quarto per Joannem Josselinum & 
Joannem Parkerum D[octoris] Matth[aei] fil[ius] (ut 
videtur) scriptus. ’’ 

49 Humphrey Wanley, Antiquae literaturae septentrionalis Liber 
alter, 1705; 102. 

50 Remarks and Collections of Thomas Hearne, edited by C. E. 
Doble, III, 216-217 (1888). 

51Strype, Life and Acts of Matthew Parker, II, 514 (1821). 

52 Wanley, op. cit., 239. 


say SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


Parker’s lively interest in the publication of an Anglo- 
Saxon dictionary, however, was quite eclipsed by the much 
more active enthusiasm of Sir Henry Spelman, the moving 
spirit of the society in its waning years. Spelman’s persist- 
ent interest in securing a dictionary of the old tongue was 
roused by his difficulties with the language in a projected 
work upon the foundations of English law. His interest 
in archaeological lexicography was, to be sure, grounded in 
his legal and historical studies, but was none the less 
effective for philological purposes. His biographer, William 
Carr,®* says: ‘‘His glossary gives him a title to the name of 
inaugurator of philological science in England.’’ This 
glossary’* was begun at an early date. The first volume was 
published in 1626, and work upon the second volume was in 
progress until the closing years of Spelman’s life; but this 
volume did not appear until 1664, twenty-three years after 
his death, when it was seen through the press by Sir William 
Dugdale. 

As strongly as Spelman’s publication of this work sup- 
ports Mr. Carr’s characterization of his importance in the 
field of English philology, his close connection with the 
publication of the first printed dictionary of Anglo-Saxon 
gives him a more special note. Johannes de Laet of Ley- 
den, who was at that time engaged upon an Anglo-Saxon 
dictionary, addressed Sir Henry in 1638 upon that sub- 
ject.°> But Sir Henry, who was ‘‘not willing that it should 
be done by a stranger,’’ replied to de Laet that he himself 
would endeavor to secure the compilation of a dictionary 
of old English, and ‘‘desired his conjectanea and associa- 
tion in the business.’’ At the moment he was in corre- 
spondence with Abraham Wheelocke, soon to be the incum- 

53 Dict. Nat. Biog., LIII, 331. 

54 Archaelogus in Modum Glosarti ad Rem Antiquam Posteriorem, 


2 v., 1626-1664. 
55 Original Letters of eminent literary Men, 154. 


THE ELIZABETHAN SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES 23 


bent of the Spelman lectureship; he urged Wheelocke to 
assist in the publication of the dictionary.°® Wheelocke 
undertook the lexicon, probably as one of the obligations 
of his academic office; but again, in all probability, the 
author was ‘‘by death prevented.’’ His fragment is entered 
by Wanley®’ as ‘‘Lexicon Saxonico-Latinum, maxima ex 
parte ex Bedae Historiae Ecclesiasticae versione Saxonica.’’ 

In the meantime, de Laet, probably discouraged by his 
own lack of facilities for the prosecution of his work, com- 
mended the completion of it to Sir Simonds d’Ewes, who 
in 1649 was importuned by Sir William Dugdale®® to secure 
the assistance of William Somner in his work. As a matter 
of fact, a letter from d’Ewes to John Selden dated Febru- 
ary 1648/9, and quoted in Hickes’s Thesaurus,®® seems to 
show that at this time d’Ewes’s dictionary must have been 
completed, as he refers to it as covering two volumes 
(‘‘duobus comprehenso tomis’’), in which form it is pre- 
served now among the Harleian manuscripts.°° In any 
event, whether d’Ewes might have profited by Somner’s 
help or not, he did not ask it. Incidentally, it is worth 
while noting that Dugdale’s advice to the Baronet is so 
vague that it may be interpreted as referring to the publica- 
tion, and not to the compilation of the dictionary, which in 
the end never went to press. 

It is to the credit of Sir Simonds’s usually jealous temper 
that at about this time he himself offered assistance in 
Somner’s labor upon a lexicon. Somner was indebted to 
him at least for a copy of Joscelyn’s dictionary,” the loan 

56 Op. cit., 154-155. 

57 Wanley, op. cit., 303. 

58 Original Letters of eminent literary Men, 175. 

59 Linguarum vet[erum] septentrionalium Thesaurus, Auctore 
Georgio Hickesio, I, xliii (1705). 

60 Rev. Augustus Jessopp, in Dict. Nat. Biog., XIV, 453. 


61 William Somner, Dictionarium Saxonico-Latino-Anglicum, Oxonii, 
1659 (Preface: Ad Lectorem). 


24 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


antedating, naturally enough, d’Ewes’s death in 1650. A 
fortunate circumstance enabled Somner to proceed with the 
publication of his lexicon, the first to appear in print. The 
Spelman lectureship, which was vacated by the death of 
Wheelocke in 1653, was so disposed that the stipend of the 
lecture (ten pounds annually) was, on the advice of Arch- 
bishop Usher, separated from the impropriate living and 
assigned to Somner for the publication of his work.®? This 
appeared in 1659 under the title Dictionarium Saxonico- 
Latino-Anglicum. 

There are extant references to other Anglo-Saxon vocab- 
ularies of this period, notably those of William 1’Isle,®* Sir 
William Dugdale,** Richard James (Sir Robert Cotton’s 
librarian),®° and William Camden.** Glossaries appeared 
also in various works on antiquity and in reprinted texts. 
The most noteworthy of the latter group is Somner’s glos- 
sary to Twysden’s Scriptores, 1652. All these, however, are 
generally regarded as lacking the historical interest that 
belongs to the others. 

This brief resumé of the early history of Anglo-Saxon 
lexicography seems sufficient to show that at least ten 
dictionaries, in the main complete, had beén compiled in 
the period prior to Somner’s publication, probably half of 
which are of really high importance. Of these ten, three 
were produced by members of the society—Camden, Spel- 
man, and 1|’Isle, and four of the remainder by scholars 
dependent upon members of the society for patronage or 
financial aid—Joscelyn, James, Wheelocke, and Somner. 

A final, though casual, contemporary testimony to the 

62 White Kennett, A Life of Mr. Somner, 75-78. (Prefixed to 
Somner’s A Treatise of Gavelkind, 2d ed., 1726.) 

63 Original Letters of eminent literary Men, 152. 

64 Wanley, op. cit., 104. 

65 Op. cit., 101. 

66 Op. cit., 246. 


THE ELIZABETHAN SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES 25 


strong impress of the society upon the philological history 
of the late sixteenth and the early seventeenth centuries is 
found in Graevius’s reference to the great Anglo-Saxon 
scholars from Leland to Langbaine.** He enumerates four- 
teen students of this period, barring Junius, five of whom, 
Parker, Lambarde, Camden, Selden and Spelman, were 
members of the society, and six others associated by inti- 
macy, relationship, or patronage with those members: 
Joscelyn, Nowell, Foxe, Sir John Spelman, Wheelocke, and 
Somner. A concrete modern testimony to the predominant 
importance of Parker and Spelman in our field is given 
by Professor Wilcker: 


Bisher [1605] war der Hauptgonner und Beforderer dieser 
Studien Erzbischof Parker. Als dieser gestorben war, so dauerte 
es lingere Zeit, bis sich wieder ein Mann fand, der, nicht nur durch 
seine Kenntnisse, sondern auch durch seine Geldmittel imstande 
war, diese Bestrebungen gehorig zu unterstiitzen. Der Mittel- 
punkt der nun folgenden angelsiachsischen Studien waren die 
Spelman’s, Vater und Sohn.*§ 


I believe that my outlines of the literary engagements of 
these men—who constituted certainly the most conspicuous 
part of the Assembly—justify definite conclusions as to the 
scholarly importance of the society as a body. Archbishop 
Parker’s publications, most of them still recent at the 
founding of the club, and some of them as yet unpublished, 
were monumental in their importance to Anglo-Saxon and 
Anglo-Latin literary scholarship. His tastes, which must 
certainly have given color to the proceedings of the society 
in its early years, were preeminently those of the literary 
antiquary. One can find scarcely a trace of interest on his 
part in historical remains other than manuscripts. He was 

67 Francisci Junii, Etymologicum Anglicanum Praemittuntur Vita 
Auctoris [Auctore Johanne Georgio Graevio], (1743). 


68 Richard Wilcker, Grundriss zur Geschichte der angelsdchsischen 
Litteratur, 1885; 10. 


26 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


in all probability not to be entertained by discussions on 
‘‘The antiquity and forms of tenures,’’ and ‘‘The antiquity 
of the name of ‘Barones’ in England,’’ discourses which 
even Francis Thynne, with his more widely trained anti- 
quarian predilections, found in 1591 to be ‘‘tedious and 
course.’’®® At any rate, we can not avoid thinking that 
the Archbishop’s interests must have affected the occupa- 
tions of the society during the first few years of its exist- 
ence; though it is wholly probable that if his presence and 
influence did stimulate interest in literary questions during 
the three years before his death, in 1575, this interest may 
have subsided greatly when the tastes of the newer (and in 
the main less gifted) members showed themselves to be 
more peculiarly antiquarian. Camden, probably the most 
generally known of all the members of the organization, 
was likewise a noteworthy publisher of literary materials 
and an influential student of the old English tongue, though 
his work took character mainly from his devotion to his- 
torical studies. Lambarde, |’Isle, and Richard Carew were 
all of them important early students of the language. Sir 
Robert Cotton is immortal in what is probably the most 
valuable manuscript collection of old English literary mate- 
rials. John Stow was a notable student of historical litera- 
ture, and an editor, though a very faulty one, of Chaucer. 
Francis Thynne, the son of the most reputable early editor 
of Chaucer, contemplated publishing the first edition of the 
poet which should attempt to deal seriously with spurious 
and doubtful attributions, and was prevented only by the 
anticipation of a part of his labor by Speght. Selden’s 
scholarly intelligence, the soundest of his age, was devoted 
at least occasionally to our early historical literature. Henry 
Spelman, as the latest member of conspicuous note, con- 
tinued the tradition of Anglo-Saxon scholarship through a 


69 Thynne, op. cit., xcili—xciv. 


THE ELIZABETHAN SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES 27 


period of intellectual dearth and founded the first univer- 
sity chair for Anglo-Saxon studies. 

Here, then, are the most brilliant and influential mem- 
bers of the group. That we can survey their names, con- 
template the vitality and the supreme utility of their inter- 
est in our old literature, and conceive that this society had 
no objective literary occupation, seems impossible. This 
body of scholars, united primarily for the purpose of anti- 
quarian study, were incidentally so closely occupied with 
the importance of literature and literary investigation as a 
reflection of the life of the past that their proceedings as a 
society could not have been without effect upon their indi- 
vidual knowledge and judgment in the field of literature, 
and for this reason, part, at least, of the revival of interest 
in Anglo-Saxon literary antiquity, and much of the impetus 
of its continuance, was due directly to the fact of their 
organization. Here in all probability, then, we find the 
first instance in England of a society serving to an impor- 
tant degree the purposes of philological scholarship. 

Materials for the history of the society are scant, elusive, 
and at times contradictory; but the following points seem 
clear. Spelman is authority for the date of foundation, 
1572 or thereabouts. In the introduction to his Discourse 
on the Law Terms in Bishop Gibson’s collected edition of 
his works,’° he refers to the first meetings of the society as 
‘‘about forty-two years since.’’ The date of this discourse 
is generally accepted as 1614.7 There is nothing to indi- 
cate the nature of the society’s activities in its earlier years, 
however, Hearne’s account recording no discussions prior to 
the year 1590. In 1589 the Antiquaries submitted a peti- 
tion for incorporation, on terms that would legalize their 
organization and extend their influence, one of the principal 

70 Op. cit. [Part b], 69-70. The introductory note, ‘‘The Occasion 


of this Discourse,’’ is not printed in the separate edition of 1684. 
71 Hearne, Collection of Curious Discourses, II, 331. 


28 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


desiderata of establishment being the securing of facilities 
for the formation and maintenance of a permanent library. 
The petition was signed by Sir Robert Cotton, James Ley, 
and Sir John Doddridge.** Smith assigns the petition to 
the closing years of the sixteenth century (‘‘seculo superiore 
exeunte’’),’* and intimates that the proposal was suspended 
in the Queen’s judgment until her death. It is clear from 
an extant notice of meeting addressed to Stow, and pub- 
lished by Hearne,’* that the gatherings in the later years of 
the society’s activity were more or less formal, at least in 
the introduction of subjects for discussion. Spelman’s 
statement that the society was dormant for about twenty 
years from 1594 to 1614 is not reconcilable with the fact 
that nearly all the recorded discussions of the members are 
dated within that period.” It is apparent, however, that 
shortly after James’s accession the society fell under polit- 
ical suspicion, in spite of Sir Robert Cotton’s efforts to 
interest the monarch in the society itself or in its plan for 
incorporation.”* Gough gives definitely as the date of the 
society’s suspension 1604 or the early part of 1605.77 The 
final effort to resuscitate the society was made in 1614, when 
Cotton, Camden, Davies, Spelman, and others met to reor- 
ganize, taking care ‘‘not to meddle with matters of state or 
religion.’’ They appointed a meeting one week later, for 
which Spelman prepared his Law Terms discourse. But, 
as Spelman relates, ‘‘Before our next Meeting, we had 
notice that his Majesty took a little Mislike of our Society ; 
not being inform’d, that we had resolv’d to decline all 

72 Ewald Fliigel, Die dlteste englische Akademie; Anglia, XXXII, 
261-268 (1909). 

73 Thomas Smith, Vita Roberti Cottoni, 453-4. 

74 Op. cit., I, xv—xvii. 

75 Ante, 18. 


76 Thomas Smith, op. cit., 454. 
77 Op. cit., Xvi. 


THE ELIZABETHAN SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES 29 


Matters of State. Yet hereupon we forbare to meet 
again.’’*S The effort, about 1616, to organize a body for 
somewhat similar purposes, urged in part by some of the 
members of the old society,’® forms a new chapter in the 
history of society movements, and is, incidentally, of rather 
less interest to us because the purposes of the new ‘‘acad- 
emy’’ were to be more miscellaneous and its literary con- 
nections less sharply defined. 

Hearne names thirty-seven members of the society.®° 
These are: Arthur Agarde, Lancelot Andrews, Bishop of 
Winchester, Robert Beale, Henry Bouchier, a Mr. Bowyer, 
Richard Broughton, William Camden, Richard Carew, a 
Mr. Cliffe, William Compton, Earl of Northampton, Walter 
Cope, Sir Robert Cotton, Sir John Davies, Sir William 
Dethick, Sir John Doddridge, [Thomas] Doyley, Sampson 
Erdeswicke, William Fleetwood, William Hakewill, Abra- 
ham Hartwell, Michael Heneage, Joseph Holland, William 
Lambarde, Sir Thomas Lake, Sir Francis Leigh, Sir James 
Ley, Arnold Oldisworth (not Michael Oldisworth, as Hearne 
gives the name, for Michael was born in 1591, only thirteen 
years before the paper assigned to him was read) ,8 William 
Patten, [Sir John]|*? Savile, Sir Henry Spelman, John 
Stow, James Strangeman, Thomas Talbot, Francis Thynne, 
Sir James Whitelock, Thomas Wiseman, and Robert Wes- 
ton. Hearne does not, however, name Archbishop Parker, 
the organizer of the society,*® or Archbishop Whitgift, a 

78 Spelman, op. cit., 70. 

79 Joseph Hunter, An account of the scheme for erecting a Royal 
Academy in England, in the reign of King James the First ; Archae- 
ologia, XXXII, 132-149 (1847). Post, 36-39. 

80 Op. cit., II, 421-449. 

81 Sidney Lee, Dict. Nat. Biog., XLIIT, 113. 

82 A. F. Pollard, Dict. Nat. Biog., L, 372. Hearne was right in his 
belief that this Savile was neither Sir Henry, Thomas, nor ‘‘ Long 


Henry.’’ 
83 Gough, op. cit., Archaeologia, I, v. 


30 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


later president,®** though Whitgift’s title may refer to his 
patronage of the society rather than to his connection with 
it as an active officer. Hearne also omits from his list 
Francis Tate, at one time secretary of the society,® though 
he prints a number of discourses by Tate at the meetings of 
the club. Thomas Smith alone, as I have indicated,*® names 
William 1’Isle and John Selden. Two modern biographers 
have included in the membership the historian John Speed,** 
but upon grounds of evidence, I presume, that have not 
fallen under my observation. The roll as variously recorded, 
then, by writers whom there is every reason to credit, gives 
forty-three members. The very numbers of the society may 
account for the fact that none of its historians has given a 
list that corresponds exactly with any other. 

But the further we go, the more interestingly this ques- 
tion of membership develops. It is, of course, difficult to 
distinguish the list of members of the society for any specific 
narrow period of its activity ; but some approximations seem 
possible, and these in turn bring up again the question 
whether the roll which we have so far is in itself complete. 
Of the thirty-seven members whose names are agreed upon 
by Hearne and Gough, the identity or the biographical 
records of nine are too indefinite to allow us to form any 
conclusion whatsoever as to the period of their connection 
with the society. Of those remaining, six—Camden, Fleet- 
wood,** Dethick,*® Doyley and Lambarde, who were respec- 

84 Ibid. 

85 Ibid. 

86 See ante, 19. 

87 A. F. Pollard, in Dict. Nat. Biog., LIII, 318, and Sidney Lee, in 
Dict. Nat. Biog., XII, 308-309. 

88 Hearne, op. cit., II, 434, says that Fleetwood was admitted a 
member after he became recorder of London; this was in 1571, so 
-Fleetwood’s membership must have dated from about the time of 


organization. 
89 Ibid., II, 431. 


THE ELIZABETHAN SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES 31 


tively the steward and the literary agent of Parker, and 
Robert Weston, if he was the Robert Weston, Chancellor of 
Ireland, who died in 1573—were in all likelihood members 
_ of the society in Parker’s time. Five others—Carew, Cot- 
ton, Spelman, Hartwell and Andrews—we know joined the 
society after 1588; and six—Doddridge, Tate, Lake, Davies, 
Whitelock and Hakewill—whose birth dates range from 
1555 to 1574, were too young at the date of foundation to 
have been members of the society then or shortly after. 
The remaining eleven may or may not have joined in the 
early period, and the fact that scholarly or official distine- 
tion came to many of them in later years warrants the 
assumption that not all were members in the years imme- 
diately following the society’s organization. To recount, only 
six from these lists can be named with reasonable certainty as 
charter members; eleven were certainly not members during 
the first years; and about the remaining twenty we can draw 
no really accurate conclusions. Since, then, this listis made 
up in large part of later members of the society, the ques- 
tion naturally arises whether it includes all of the early 
members, say from 1572 to 1588. On this point, we must 
remember that Hearne, following Smith, does not give the 
name of Parker, that his interest is for the day in which 
Cotton, Carew, and Spelman were among the influential 
members, and that he records no activity of the society 
prior to 1589. Now the ultimate source of Hearne’s infor- 
mation on the history of the society is the Cottonian manu- 
seript from which Smith secured his material; and this, 
according to Gough,°*° is the record of the society’s activities 
subsequent to 1591. Gough supports the evidence of this 
manuseript on questions pertaining to the history of the 
society by reference to manuscript materials left by Francis 
Tate, secretary of the society during the later period, and 


90 Op. cit., Archaeologia, I, vi. 


Fe SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


to an Ashmolean manuscript which he mentions only casu- 
ally. Tate was not a member of the early society, for he 
was only twelve years old when it was founded; for this 
reason, his list of members, especially if it had any direct con- — 
nection with his secretarial duties, would probably include 
only his later associates in the body. There is nothing in 
the facts connected with the sources of Hearne’s informa- 
tion, and Gough’s, then, to make it appear that their cata- 
logues comprehend the membership of the society for the 
entire period of its existence from 1572 to 1604, even though 
Gough, apparently from hasty inference, assumes this to be 
the case.*? 

There is, on the other hand, seeming evidence that these 
two lists do not cover the membership of the society during 
its first years. In another and later manuscript quoted by 
Gough, and attributed to a Mr. West,®? which Gough uses 
for the historical data for his account of Edmund Bolton’s 
project of 1616-7, but which he makes no effort to compare 
with the first mentioned manuscripts on points touching the 
history of the earlier society, we find a list of members of. 
the old society which differs remarkably from that of 
Hearne. Here we have thirteen members named, with a 
broadly inclusive ‘‘ete.,’’ only six of whom Hearne gives in 
his total of thirty-six—Lambert (Lambarde), Erdeswicke, 
Heneage, Thynne, Talbot, and Stow. The remaining seven 
of this list are ‘‘the late Earls of Shrewsbury and North- 
ampton (not William Compton, who was made Earl of 
Northampton in 1618 and died in 1629, but probably Henry 
Howard, second son of the Earl of Surrey), Sir Gilbert 

91 Ibid., vi. 

92 Ibid., xv. This manuscript forms the basis of Oldys’s brief 
sketch of the society in his Life of Sir Walter Ralegh, prefixed to his 
edition of Ralegh’s History of the World, 1736 (1, exxx—cxxxi, note). 


Oldys accepts the list of members which this manuscript gives ap- 
parently without a question as to its authenticity. 


THE ELIZABETHAN SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES 33 


Dethick (the father of Sir William Dethick, whom Hearne 
names as a member), ‘‘ Valence, Esq.,’’ Sir Henry Fan- 
shawe, ‘‘Benefield, Esq.,’’ and T. Holland (not Joseph 
Holland, a member identified by Hearne). There are some 
considerations which throw doubt upon the authenticity of 
this list; notably the fact that errors in identification are 
suggested by the occurrence of an Earl of Northampton, a 
Dethick, and a Holland, where Hearne has given other indi- 
viduals of these names. Again we must bear in mind the 
fact that the Cottonian records and the Tate list are prob- 
ably contemporary with the society itself, while any manu- 
seript connected with the Bolton project must be subse- 
quent to the final dissolution of the society. But there does 
remain the significant fact that this list was certainly made 
while the memory of the old society was still fresh, and that 
the discrepancies between this list and Hearne’s catalogue 
are sufficiently marked to demand careful consideration. 
As to the apparently important differences between the two 
sets of names, there is no reason why two Earls of North- 
ampton and two Dethicks, father and son, might not have 
been members of the society ; and the T. Holland for Joseph 
Holland loses some of its condemnatory force when we re- 
member that Hearne himself is liable to errors in identifi- 
cation, since he certainly mistook Arnold Oldisworth for 
Michael Oldisworth.°** 

As to the chronological relationships of these various 
lists, all of the names in the West manuscript that Hearne 
identifies with the membership of the society are of the older 
generation of members, and none are named whom we know 
to have joined the society at a later date. The two other 
names on the West list that we can identify with practical 
certainty are those of Gilbert Dethick and Sir Henry Fan- 
shawe, men of sufficient age to make it appear that they 


93 See ante, 29. 
4 


34 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


might have been members—if at all—during the early years. 
These facts seem to indicate that, granting the West manu- 
script whatever authority we may care to attach to it, we 
must regard it as referring to the early period of the old 
society’s history; the Hearne list, which stands as the type 
of contemporary catalogues, seems to refer to the member- 
ship of the later years of the society’s activity. 

Surprises in the West manuscript, however, do not cease 
with the differences between this list of thirteen members 
and Hearne’s list of thirty-six; for Gough, continuing his 
excerpts from the manuscript, says:°* ‘‘To the deceased 
members the manuscript adds Sir Philip Sidney, Fitz Alan, 
last Earl of Arundel of that name,’’ continuing with an 
enumeration of ‘‘members,’’ to use his own term, which 
includes some of the most distinguished names of the period, 
among them Sir Walter Raleigh, Thomas Sackville Earl of 
Dorset, William Cecil Lord Burghley, the Herberts Earls of 
Pembroke, and Sir Henry Savile. So the question as to the 
authenticity of this manuscript becomes one of more moment 
than as affecting simply the question of the period covered 
by contemporary lists of members. If the West Manu- 
seript is not vulnerable—and the lack of support from 
actually contemporary evidence must cause us to pause on 
this point—the society is vastly more significant from every 
aspect, literary, social, and political, than merely as a quiet 
gathering of serious scholars. Its influence, if Sidney, 
Sackville, Raleigh, and Cecil were actually members, must 
have been far greater than we have any reason to believe 
from extant historical accounts. With these names possibly 
associated with the history of the society, it acquires a specu- 
lative interest of a much broader kind—but still frankly, 
and possibly dangerously, speculative. 

The antiquity and the uniqueness of the position of this 
society, and the tenuousness of historical facts concerning 


94 Op. cit., Archaeologia, I., xix—xxi. 


THE ELIZABETHAN SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES 35 


it, have probably justified an inquiry into its existence and 
the province of its occupations that is plainly out of propor- 
tion to its intrinsic historical value. The very isolation of 
the body, and the fact that its motives and interests are 
obscure, have been temptations to inquiry and surmise 
that have probably yielded some tangible results, even 
though these results are built upon probabilities rather 
than facts. 

The general inferences as to the scholarly importance of 
the society may be briefly summarized. The dominating 
personality of its earlier days was in all probability Arch- 
bishop Parker, whose interest in antiquity was satisfied 
wholly, as far as we can discern, by literary studies. After 
his death, Lambarde, Camden, Stow, and their associates 
remained to preserve the society’s traditions, but presum- 
ably with a transferal of their interests to the more typically 
archaeological. With the advent of Cotton and Spelman, 
and the beginning of probably the most active period in the 
history of the society, the researches of the members, as 
judged from their published work, drew more heavily upon 
the literature of antiquity, recognizing its importance for 
the study of the past, and thus aroused a greatly extended 
interest in the general field of Anglo-Saxon and Anglo- 
Norman literature. This interest developed a series of 
textual publications and linguistic works which were not 
always the direct products of these antiquaries, but for 
which the scholarship and erudition of these members were 
the sustaining forces. It is impossible to prove that the 
society held a single literary meeting; but its personnel and 
the individual literary activities of its members make it 
difficult to believe that their antiquarian occupations barred 
all collective interest in the materials of literature. In any 
event, measuring the importance of the organization in this 
field, we must concede it as a body an eminent place in the 
traditions of English literary scholarship. 


CHAPTER III 


THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 


The decease of the society which Parker, Camden, and 
Spelman had served over an intermittent period of forty- 
two years marks the decline of amateur literary organiza- 
tion in England for almost a century. The next effort to 
stimulate collective interest in literary and antiquarian 
studies, which immediately followed Spelman’s final attempt 
to revive the old society, had in view a pompous honorary 
foundation under royal patronage; and with the failure of 
this scheme, organization for the ends of literary scholar- 
ship languished until the establishment of the present So- 
ciety of Antiquaries in the early eighteenth century. 
Throughout the seventeenth century, then, over a period 
which covers the Anglo-Saxon revival of post-revolutionary 
days, and the still more important renascence of interest in 
the literature of English antiquity that was supported by 
the labors of Kennett, Gibson, Benson, Hickes, and Wanley, 
we find no record of formal or informal alliance on the part 
of literary scholars, though the age was rather remarkable 
for the good will and freedom from intellectual jealousy 
that prevailed among them. A few efforts which echo 
more or less clearly the ideas of Parker and Spelman are 
worthy, however, of remembrance, even if they serve only 
to demonstrate the lack of continuity in the society tra- 
dition. 

The project of Edmund Bolton, historian and critic, to 
secure the favor of James I for a scheme intended to serve 
to some extent the general aims of the old society was first 

36 


THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 37 


presented in 1616 or 1617.1. Bolton’s plan was to found an 
order of scholarship, with complex organization and elabo- 
rate pageantry, including decorations and special armorial 
bearings for the members, and gravely formal stated meet- 
ings. His proposal was urged specially through the agency 
of the Duke of Buckingham, whose influence at the court of 
James was then all-powerful. No action upon the plan was 
taken for some years, however, although the conception of 
such an august assembly flattered the monarchical vanity of 
the King to the point that ‘‘it finally pleased him... to 
enlarge the institution [in posse] itself with more grants 
and faculties than were desired.’’? The final plan, which 
was developed with the aid of numerous suggestions from 
James himself, outlined ‘‘The Academy Royal of King 
James’’ as an aristocratic foundation, the two ranking 
classes of which were to be composed of supernumerary 
court brilliants, and the third class of ‘‘ Essentials, upon 
whom the weight of the work was to lie,’’ who were to be 
gentlemen ‘‘either living in the light of things, or without 
any title of profession or art of life for lucre.’’* The prin- 
cipal public functions of the order were to be the superin- 
tendence of efficient translations of foreign secular works, 
and the issuance of authentic material for the history of the 
nation.* Its province was therefore more or less directly 
critical, though concerned more with questions of material 
and taste than with those of scholarship. 

The list of ‘‘ Essentials’’ includes many names of literary 
or scholarly eminence, with a generous adulteration of minor 
poets and personal friends of the projector. But important 

1 Joseph Hunter, An account of the scheme for erecting a Royal 
Academy in England, in the Reign of King James the First; 
Archaeologia, XXXII, 132-149, 1847; 136. 

2 Ibid., 140. 

3 Ibid. 

4 Tbid., 141. 


38 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


men were really sufficiently numerous and sufficiently rep- 
resentative to have made the foundation potentially great. 
On Bolton’s list of prospective members are found: Sir 
William Alexander, Earl of Sterling, Sir Robert Aytoun, 
Sir John Beaumont, Edmund Bolton, George Chapman, Sir 
Robert Cotton, Sir Kenelm Digby, Sir Dudley Digges, 
Michael Drayton, Ben Jonson, Inigo Jones, Endymion 
Porter, John Selden, Sir Henry Spelman, Sir Henry Wot- 
ton, and Patrick Young.® 

It is clear from the stated objects and the personnel of 
Bolton’s proposed order that it was to serve the cultural 
purposes of an academy, and principally, to stand as the 
censor of national taste. Bolton succeeded in exciting the 
King’s interest in the idea until it appeared that all the 
society lacked of establishment was his public sanction; for 
James’s final consultation with Bolton in 1624°® seemed to 
settle all the incidental questions as to the form and scope 
of organization. But the King’s procrastination was in the 
end fatal to the scheme, for he died in the following year, 
leaving the projectors to press anew with Charles their 
appeal for royal sanction. In a markedly less cultured 
court than that of James it is not surprising that the plan 
eventually failed; in fact it is recorded that Charles was 
prejudiced against the scheme before he came to the throne, 
for when Bolton was endeavoring to secure the aid of James 
in the project, Charles was heard to express his opinion 
that it was ‘‘too good for the times.’”* 

Charles’s criticism of the proposed academy may not 
have been wholly inapposite. His notion of ‘‘too good’’ 
implies, we may assume, too pretentious rather than too — 
ideal. The form suggested for the body was certainly of a 
sort to hamper rather than to aid the development of the 

5 Ibid., 142-147. 


6 Ibid., 140. 
7 Ibid., 147-148. 


THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 39 


literary resources of England of that day; and the ponder- 
ousness of the machinery of organization was without doubt 
too much for the ill-defined purposes it might have served. 
Charles’s decision on this point is possibly more praise- 
worthy than his father’s indecision—indeed, James’s de- 
layed favor may have been due to a practical distrust of 
what his pride induced him to foster, at least in appearance. 
It is interesting to consider, as we look back upon the idea, 
what effect the actual existence of the Academy Royal of 
King James might have had upon a growing classical influ- 
ence in English literature, and indeed upon the whole 
course of national literature from that time on. But the 
point is scarcely relevant. 

The projected Academy of King James was typical of a 
tendency in the critical program of the time that was more 
far-reaching in its effects than even Bolton himself was in 
all probability capable of recognizing. It is of course un- 
necessary to point out that if Bolton’s scheme had been 
successfully established, an English academy, instead of the 
later French Academy, would have been the first national 
project of the kind to gain the authority of royal favor. It 
is worth while inquiring, however, whether the failure of 
this resplendent plan was merely an accident of fate— 
moving here in the guise of royal caprice—or whether the 
conditions of the times, political as well as intellectual, were 
right for such an establishment and could endow it with any 
prospect of continued usefulness. We must remember that 
if Bolton’s effort was only an effort, it was at any rate well 
defined, serious, and dignified. The fact that so complete 
and promising a plan was a failure carries us into a con- 
sideration of the history of other attempts of a similar 
kind throughout the seventeenth century. 

Up to the time of Bolton’s plan the proposals for and 
activity in the formation of learned societies and academies 


40 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


had been wholly dilettante in character—and if prototypes 
of the academy idea in these earlier years need be sought, 
they may be found in the amateur status, and largely 
amateurish work, of the earlier Italian academies. We may 
recall that it was with precisely their spirit that Chapelain 
and his friends first held their private meetings in 1629, 
and that the larger importance of their body did not begin 
until political exigencies resulted in the establishment of 
the Académie Francaise by Richelieu in 1635.5 Then its 
participation, with the panoply of authority, in a nation- 
wide controversy upon literary taste gave it a serious dig- 
nity and a critical finality which no body of the sort had 
ever before possessed. One of the obvious results of the 
transference of the machinery of French pseudo-classicism 
to England in the seventeenth century is found in reiterated 
proposals, from many of the leading English men of letters 
of the day, for the founding of an English academy of 
letters which should have the same weight of critical — 
authority as the French Academy. Projects for such an™ 
academy were offered by Sprat, Dryden, Defoe, Addison, 
and Swift, and more casual recommendations were made 
by James Howell, Milton, the Earl of Roscommon, Pope, 
and Prior;®? but these were without exception ineffective, 
although the idea was urged at intervals until the middle 
of the eighteenth century, when it was laid at rest, probably 
largely through the opposition of Dr. Johnson. In the 
absence of a special foundation for the improvement of the 

8D. Maclaren Robertson, A History of the French Academy, 
[1910], 3-28. : 

9Mr. B. 8S. Monroe’s article, An English Academy (Modern 
Philology, VIII, 107-122, 1910), treats in a thorough way the his- 
tory of the various proposals for an English academy of letters dur- 
ing the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Dr. J. E. Spingarn’s 


Critical Essays of the Seventeenth Century contains a compact but 
useful note on the subject; II, 337-8. 


THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 41 


language, however, the Royal Society undertook, four years 
after its establishment in 1660, at least to acknowledge the 
want of an English academy by the appointment of a 
‘‘Committee for Improving the English Tongue.’’?® No 
record is extant of definite results attained by this commit- 
tee, although it is certain that they held some formal 
meetings." 

That the existence and relative effectiveness of the French 
Academy failed to bring about the establishment of such an 
institution in England, especially in an age so strongly 
under the dominance of French critical ideas, seems matter 
for real wonder. The reasons which Matthew Arnold sug- 
gests for the existence of the French Academy and the 
absence of a similar body in England—briefly, that the 
characteristic of the English mind is individual energy, of 
the French, openness and intellectual flexibility’?—account 
probably for the readiness of the English to dispense with 
a check upon intellectual freedom. But these reasons are 
not properly historical reasons; they explain a condition, 
rather than trace the origins of an historical fact. It is 
probably correct to say, in a general way, that the greater 
intellectual democracy of the English could not submit to 
such a tyranny of trained taste; but a more real reason for 
the failure of the academy idea in England is probably to 
be found in the intellectual conditions which determined 
the particular nature of scholarly comity throughout this 
century, and which gave birth to the Royal Society itself. 

The Royal Society is as truly a coefficient of English 
intellectual interests in this period as the Académie Fran- 

10 Thomas Birch, History of the Royal Society of London, 1756-7; 
I, 499-500, IT, 7. 

11 Memoirs of John Evelyn, edited by William Bray, 1827; IV, 
144-9, 


12 Matthew Arnold, The literary Influence of Academies; In Essays 
in Criticism, 1895; 42-79. 


42 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


eaise is for France. Although at the first glance these two 
societies may seem to voice the same scholarly aims, no 
intellectual incentives could be more radically divergent 
than those which gave life to the two. The Academy owed 
its existence, under a nearly absolute political tyranny, to 
a demand for authority in matters of taste; the Royal So- 
ciety responded to the growing outcry against everything 
savoring of scholastic authority, and stood as-the expressed 
champion of the experimental philosophy of Bacon. 

The tangible debt of the Royal Society to the ‘‘New 
Philosophy’’ of Bacon finds loyal expression in Cowley’s 
Ode to the Royal Society.> Sprat states the debt more 
conservatively, but no less positively, in his History ;* and 
it has in fact been admitted from the earliest years of the 
Society’s existence that the initial impulse to organization 
for the purposes of experimental science is to be found in 
the philosophical writings of Bacon, particularly in the 
Novum Organum and the New Atlantis. 

But although the Royal Society was chartered for the 
‘improvement of Natural Knowledge,’’** its. membership 
was by no means restricted to men of science. One of the 
intellectual ideals of the age was that of a universal pros- 
pect of knowledge, an ideal greatly expanded through the 
large results of experimental skepticism. The philosophical 
systems of Bacon and Descartes were, in their attitudes 
toward the field of knowledge, encyclopaedic; and the edu- 
cational system of Comenius, which had great effect upon 

13 First published in Sprat’s History of the Royal Society of 
London, 1667. 

14 Op. cit., 35-36. 

15 Charles Richard Weld, A History of the Royal Society, 1848; I, 
57-64. 

16 [bid., I, 126. The word ‘‘natural,’’ it has been pointed out, 
was used as an antonym for supernatural, and implied for this reason 


the realm of knowledge that might be subjected to concrete tests. 
The word comprehends therefore the sense of experimental. 


THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 43 


English thought at that time—largely through the influence 
of his friend Samuel Hartlib,'* conceived the great scholarly 
desideratum of the age to be the establishment of a method 
of democratic interchange between the disciples of the 
various branches of learning. This new conception of intel- 
lectual comity probably determined to a large extent the 
miscellaneous complexion of the early membership of the 
Royal Society. Another point of significance in this con- 
nection is that the experimental philosophy of the seven- 
teenth century had as comprehensive an effect upon all the 
provinees of intellectual interest in its day as the publica- 
tion of the evolutionary theory had in the middle of the 
nineteenth century. It is not surprising, therefore, that 
along with philosophers, churchmen, and architects, the 
men of letters of the day were drawn into the Royal Society 
_ and into the special circle of interests which it represented. 
Although the intellectual motives of the French Academy 
and of the Royal Society were in their essence not merely 
unrelated, but actually opposed, there was no sense of this 
in the minds of those who urged the foundation of an 
academy under the impression that it would further in the 
realm of language and literature the methods of the Royal 
Society in the field of science. We may recall that Sprat 
and Dryden, for example, supported the idea of an academy 
of language, whose purposes could be only a prior, arbi- 
trary, and restrictive, in the belief that these purposes com- 
plied with the investigative methods of the Royal Society. 
The fact of importance here is that historical scholarship 
17H, Dircks, A biographical Memoir of Samuel Hartlib, London, 
14-21, 42-43. Will S. Monroe, Comenius and the Beginnings of 
educational Reform, 1900; 51-57. Comenius’s relationship to de- 
fined movements of scholarly organization in Germany is discussed at 
length in Ludwig Keller’s Comenius und die Akademien der Natur- 


philosophen des 17. Jahrhunderts; Monatshefte der Comenius-Gesell- 
schaft, IV, 1-28, 69-96, 133-84 (1895). 


44 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


in literature suffered both from the distraction of the age 
with new avocational studies, and from the occupation of 
the critics of the time, in emulation of the French Academy, 
with constructive literary theories, at the expense of objec- 
tive interest in the older literary field. This exploitation 
of the synthetic, as opposed to the historical, method seems 
significant of the spirit of the times; and it may be that the 
failure of an already awakened interest in the ancient and 
medieval literary history of the land may have been corol- 
lary to the general downfall of authority and tradition in 
the wider realm of philosophy. That scholarly interest in 
the older literature was waning throughout the greater part 
of this century seems to be wholly evident. Probably the 
typical attitude toward philological scholarship in this day 
is found in Sprat, who, while his scorn of early English 
literature’® prevented his regarding it as fairly within the 
general philological domain, congratulates the scholars of 
his time on having exhausted the possibilities of philolog- 
ical study, and having before them, therefore, a clear field 
for experimental philosophy.*® 

So marked and important a change in the scholarly out- 
look between the day of Parker and the day of Sprat may be 
traced to a number of causes. Without doubt the decline 
of nationalism since the age of Elizabeth and the political 
and religious turmoil of the mid-century must have had a 
perceptibly deterrent effect upon the popular interest in 
literature ;?° and this must eventually have affected the 
special interests of scholars. But a more potent reason for 

18 Thomas Sprat, History of the Royal Society of London, 1667; 
21, 42. 

19 [bid., 24-25. 

20 In the commendatory verses to William Somner’s Dictionarium 
Saxonico-Latino-Anglicum .. . 1649, signed Johannes de Bosco, the 


discouraging outlook of literary and antiquarian scholarship during 
the period of the Civil War and the Commonwealth is pointed out. 


THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 45 


the decline of the older literature from popular taste was 
the recession of the ancient matter and ideals of literature 
from ‘the domain of vital contemporary interest, co-incident 
with a fecundity of novel and accomplished literary pro- 
duction throughout the Elizabethan period that completely 
filled the place of the popular literary product from Chaucer 
to Skelton.** The literary resources of the nation were 
probably multiplied many times in the fifty years following 
Parker’s editorial activities. This fact alone was sufficient 
for the time being to kill the interest in literary antiquity 
which Parker had endeavored to foster. 

We are of course familiar with the way in which the 
splendid literary consciousness of the Elizabethan age was 
transmuted into the exaggerated self-confidence of Augus- 
tan England. Whatever the forces that induced this revul- 
sion in literary taste, the dominant aim of the day was to 
develop a classicism derived from the Continent and sup- 
ported by arbitrary canons of taste. It seems characteristic 
of the history of all efforts at intensive cultivation of the 

21A significant illustration of the abrupt decline in the general 
appreciation of middle English literature with the opening of the 
new century may be found in the relative frequency of reprints of 
Chaucer’s works before and after the year 1602. Between the date 
of publication of William Thynne’s first collected edition of Chaucer 
in 1532 and of the reprint of Speght’s edition in 1602, a period of 
seventy years, six assumedly complete editions were printed. Only 
two more were produced down to the year 1721, when Urry brought 
out his new edition. More significant still are the dates of publica- 
tion of the Canterbury Tales, which may obviously be taken as a 
more effective criterion of purely popular interest in Chaucerian 
literature. From Caxton’s first edition of the Canterbury Tales in 
1477-8 to Speght’s collected edition of 1602 eleven issues were 
brought forth in one hundred and twenty-five years; from this date 
to 1775-8, when Tyrwhitt edited the Canterbury Tales alone, only 
three additional issues appeared in one hundred and seventy-six 
years—an average of one issue every eleven years during the first 
period, and of one in every forty-four years during the second. 


46 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


vernacular that they imply a general lack of respect for the 
ancient vernacular literature; for the very belief in the 
future of the vulgar tongue carries with it a disrespect for 
its past. In addition to this, classical propaganda had 
always had little to do with antiquated vernacular litera- 
ture, if for no other reason than that native literature 
in the making had never been considered part of a 
respectable cultural program. In any event, the classical 
tendency of the criticism of the time seems to supply another 
reason for the absence of interest in the older English liter- 
ature. In England at least the condemnation of the older 
literature—and the classical perfectionists of the end of the 
century saw barbarism in the literary product of no more 
remote a period than the age of Elizabeth—was generally 
uncritical and generally prejudiced, but almost always ill 
informed. This lack of historical perspective assigned the 
supposed deficiencies of the Chaucerian period to barbaric 
unfamiliarity with critical principles and a lack of common 
knowledge of the language. But with the characteristic 
blindness of a priori theory, the seventeenth century failed 
to see its own overpowering critical incapacity in its ignor- 
ance of linguistic evolution and middle English prosody. 
The final word of the age on this point is found in the 
Preface 'to Dryden’s Fables; here we see an otherwise per- 
ceptive and generous piece of criticism marred by a wholly 
unbhistorical view of the subject.22 Whatever the merits 

22 Tt is interesting to observe in the trend of critical opinion upon 
Chaucer’s work throughout this century an effective criterion of the 
value of the assumedly historical criticism of the time on medieval 
English literature. Dr. J. E. Spingarn’s Critical Essays of the 
seventeenth Century, 3 v., Oxford, 1908-9, presents a series of critical 
allusions which seem typical of the period. 

Ben Jonson decries the use of Chaucer and Gower by students of 
untrained taste, ‘‘lest falling too much in love with Antiquity, and 


not apprehending the weight, they grow rough and barren in language 
onely’’ (I, 34). Edmund Bolton ‘‘cannot advise the allowance of’’ 


THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 47 


or faults of this age of criticism may have been, we must 
remember that here for once criticism did prescribe the lit- 
erary taste of the day. So with the force of effective con- 
temporary criticism arraigned against it, it is not surpris- 
ing that interest in old and middle English literature in the 
day of Dryden was probably at its very lowest point of 
decline. 

These largely correlated facts have been grouped without 
a pretence to finality. It would be absurd to insist that any 
given set of facts bear precisely the relations one to another 
that have been assigned to them here. After all, such facts 
ean scarcely be explicitly classed as anything more than 
common evidences of a simple and natural reaction in liter- 
ary feeling. But as to the part which scholarship plays in 
this reaction, it seems reasonably clear that it was affected 
by two causes which affected the popular appreciation of 
ancient English literature at the time: the weakening of 
English national culture, and the ever increasing remote- 
Spenser’s poems, ‘‘as for practick English, no more than I can do 
Jeff. Chaucer, Lydgate, Pierce Ploughman, or Laureat Skelton’’ (I, 
109); Bolton’s stricture upon the old literature is to be qualified, 
however, by the fact that he is dealing with the question of English 
for the historical writers of his own day. Peacham has an admir- 
able word of praise for Chaucer, and seems to distinguish his capaci- 
ties from those of Gower and Lydgate in a really efficient way (I, 
132-3). Drayton’s Epistle to Reynolds has a commendation rather 
labored in figure, but with a deprecation of the insufficiency of 
Chaucer’s language for poetic expression (I, 135-6). Sprat’s atti- 
tude of general scorn for medieval English has been referred to 
already, but it is worth noting specifically that he regards Chaucer’s 
poetry as the only literature of its time worth reading twice (II, 
113); but Sprat’s praise of Chaucer has distinct limitation, for in an 
earlier passage of the History of the Royal Society (21) he com- 
mends the schoolmen ‘‘as we are wont to do Chaucer; we would con- 
fess, that they are admirable in comparison of the ignorance of their 
own Age.’’? Rymer voices the characteristic sentiment of the latter 
end of the century: ‘‘ But from our Language proceed to our Writers, 


48 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


ness of the old literature from the field of immediate pop- 
ular interests; and by two causes which touched it more 
specifically : the eclipse of other intellectual pursuits in the 
ascendancy of natural science, and the absorption of liter- 
ary scholars in the critical abstractions of the day, both as 
to language and as to literature. It is not surprising, there- 
fore, that with so little in the national spirit and in the 
scholarly occupations of the time to vitalize an interest in 
the literary productions of a period then wholly out of 
vogue, there should have been no organized group of 
scholars to continue the traditions established by Parker 
and Spelman. 

Throughout so barren a period as this was for the pro- 
ductive student of the literature of English antiquity, the 
few who were still concerned with the subject, and for 
whom more remunerative occupations could afford the 
necessary leisure, were supporting a languishing study 
through textual editing and lexicography, and, quite as im- 
and with the freedom of this Author, examine how unhappy the 
greatest English Poets have been through their ignorance or negli- 
gence of these fundamental Rules and Laws of Aristotle. I shall 
leave the Author of the Romance of the Rose (whom Sir Richard 
Baker makes an Englishman) for the French to boast of, because he 
writ in their Language. Nor shall I speak of Chaucer, in whose time 
our Language, I presume, was not capable of any Heroick Char- 
acter’? (Li ci6z), 

Dryden treats Chaucer with more spontaneous judgment than most 
of the critics of his day; in fact his Preface to the Fables, 1700, is 
in many respects a monument of originality and critical honesty. 
Yet he shares in the prejudice and the lack of perspective of his 
time. He attempts expressly to confute Speght’s judgment that 
apparent deficiencies in rhythm were to be explained by differences 
in the older pronunciation (Works, Ed. Scott and Saintsbury, XI, 
224-5) and fatuously assumes that Chaucer ‘‘must first be polished, 
ere he shines.’’ An echo of the narrowness of classical consistency 
is heard in his: ‘‘I deny not likewise, that, living in our early days 
of poetry, he writes not always of a piece; but sometimes mingles 
trivial things with those of greater moment’’ (ibid., 232). 


THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 49 


portantly, through the medium of more properly anti- 
quarian investigation. It might be broadly said, in fact, 
that philological science in the latter half of the seventeenth 
century was advanced more by incidental than by direct 
contributions; and this continued to be measurably true 
until the vogue of medieval literature was restored in the 
middle of the eighteenth century as an incident of the 
Romantic Reaction. The actual critical and scholarly activ- 
ity of the age was, in fact, broad to an unprecedented 
degree; but its deficiencies for the purposes of non- 
utilitarian culture lay in the fact that its incentives and 
ends were almost exclusively theological.?? But although 
churchmen and antiquaries still seemed to possess the 
greater part of the current interest in Anglo-Saxon studies, 
the most important and masterful work in the field was 
accomplished by a foreigner, and a scholar of the most dis- 
interested and devoted type, Franciscus Junius. It was 
Junius, in fact, whose residence at Oxford during the clos- 
ing years of his life enlisted the scholarly labors of some of 
the most important students of his day, notably Marshall, 
Nicolson, and Hickes. His great importance in the history 
of Anglo-Saxon scholarship is not measured merely by the 
value of his publications, his transcriptions, and his lexi- 
cography, but by the effect of his teaching and his per- 
sonality upon the scholarly productions of the half-century 
and more following his death.** This group of Oxford 
scholars, united by their proximity and in a common aim, 
though without any pretence of formal organization, main- 

23 See Prof. Foster Watson’s chapter on Scholars and Scholarship, 
1600-60, in the Cambridge History of English Literature, VII, 304- 
324, 1911. 

24 The weight of Junius’s influence upon the philological scholar- 
ship of the late seventeenth and the early eighteenth century appears 


in Wiilker’s list of Anglo-Saxon publications for this period. 
Grundriss zur Geschichte der angelsdchsischen Literatur, 1885, 19-23. 


5 


50 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


tained a continued and increasing productivity until well 
into the new century, when the revival of antiquarian re- 
search, with the establishment of the Society of Antiquaries, 
provided a more tangible and more efficient foundation for 
scholarly development. 

Meawhile the tendency toward concentration on the part’ 
of scholars and dilettanti marks the slow but effective 
growth of the idea of the learned society. Organization 
was probably less generally evident in England than on the 
Continent,”> but a number of segregated instances mark the 
history of the movement. Projects and actual organiza- 
tions for pedagogic, political, scientific, and merely social 
aims are found in every decade of the century; but none 
ean be strictly identified—barring the Royal Society and 
one or two others of similar but less conspicuous purposes— 
as in the main parallel to the modern conception of special 
society activities. 

The educational feature of Bolton’s proposal for an acad-+ 
emy was embodied in later pedagogical projects designed to 
serve the ends of a modern cultural training—usually for 
‘‘gentlemen’s sons.’’ The most notable scheme of this kind 
was Sir Francis Kynaston’s Musaeum Minervae, which 
was licensed by Charles I in 16357° and continued in exist- 
ence until 1642. Balthasar Gerbier’s academy was estab- 
lished in 1649 to continue the purposes of the Museum 
Minervae, but it was dissolved in 1651.27 These foundations 
are of interest only as private projects of more liberal and 
utilitarian educational aims than the universities; they bear 
no relation to societies organized for the furtherance of 
scholarly interests. Comenius’s pedagogical projects did, 
however, include a plan, incidental to his pansophic pro- 

25 Gothofredi Vockerodt, Hzercitationes Academicae, Gothae, 1704, 
15-124 passim. 


26 Dict. Nat. Biog., XX XI, 355-6. 
27 Dict. Nat. Biog., XXI, 227-229. 


THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 51 


gram, which contemplated a ‘‘universal college’’; and 
apparently this plan seemed for a time in 1642 to be on the 
eve of accomplishment in England itself, through the inter- 
est of Parliament in Comenius’s educational theories.?® 
This proposal, though suggested as a purely educational 
measure, is a very significant reflection of the expansion of 
the ideal of scholarly comity. 

It has been noted*® that the methods and organization of 
experimental science in the sixteenth century were antici- 
pated, or rather definitely outlined, in the ‘‘Salomon’s 
House’’ of Bacon’s New Atlantis.2° Bacon’s plan—if so 
cursory and highly imaginative a picture may be called a 
plan—compassed not merely a fellowship of scientific 
scholars, but also ‘‘Novices and Apprentices, that the Suc- 
cession of the former Employed Men does not faile’’;*? in 
this provision we see the long prevalent inclination to com- 
bine the investigative with the pedagogic aim. Whether 
Thomas Bushell’s declared intention of instituting a society 
upon the lines suggested by Bacon was an intention in good 
faith seems to be open to question.®* Closely similar proj- 
ects were offered, however, by Hartlib, Evelyn, and Cowley 
before the formal organization of the Royal Society. Hart- 
lib’s projected ‘‘ Macaria’’** was probably the first of the 
unproductive efforts to put into effect the scheme of a 
philosophical society on the lines of ‘‘Salomon’s House.”’ 
Hartlib cherished his plan patiently for twenty years, and 

28 Will S. Monroe, Comenius and the Beginnings of educational 
Reform, 1900; 53-56. 

29 Ante, 42. 

30 Francis Bacon, The New Atlantis, Edited by G. C. Moore Smith, 
1900; 34-46. 

81 Ibid., 45. 

82 Ibid., xxviii—xxix. 

33 Samuel Hartlib, A Description of the famous Kingdom of 
Macaria. In a Dialogue between a Schollar and a Traveller; Lon- 
don, 1641. 


52 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


seems to have actually instituted a society, called at first 
Macaria, and afterwards Antilia, in the hope that he would 
eventually secure the aid that might make his schemes 
capable of realization.*+ It is interesting to note in this 
connection that Hartlib was in communication with the 
members of the Oxford Philosophical Society, and with 
some of the important early members of the Royal Society 
itself, including Boyle, Evelyn, and Wren.*®> His advocacy 
of the idea of a philosophical foundation upon these lines 
was, however, too general and too visionary to enable us 
to regard him as an important factor in a development 
which was after all inherent in the intellectual quality of 
his generation. The chief importance of his ideas touching 
investigative science lay in his wholesome efforts to extend 
the experimental method to the domain of useful popular 
knowledge. Hartlib’s name has incidental connection with 
Sir William Petty’s Advice of W. P. to Mr. Samuel Harthb, 
for the Advancement of some particular Parts of Learning, 
1648.°° In the way of preface to the exposition of his plan 
for a more utilitarian education for children and youths, 
Petty points out the necessity of assimilating and systema- 
tizing the knowledge derived from experiment-and observa- 
tion. 

Evelyn’s proposal is outlined in a letter written in 1659 
to Robert Boyle;?* he contemplates the foundation of a 
scholarly community on a reservation adapted to the pur- 
poses of experiment in the fields of what are called to-day 
pure and natural sciences. The foundation was to be en- 

34 H, Direks, A biographical Memoir of Samuel Hartlib, London, 
n. d.; 15-19, 44-45. There are numerous allusions to Macaria 
throughout Hartlib’s early correspondence with Dr. John Worthing- 
ton, in The Diary and Correspondence of Dr. John Worthington, 
Chetham Society, v. I, 1847. - 

35 Dircks, op. cit., 17-21. C. R. Weld, op. cit., I, 30-41. 

86 Reprinted in the Harleian Miscellany, 1808-11; VI, 143-158. 

37 Robert Boyle, Works, 1772, VI, 288-91. 


THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 53 


dowed under rather strict disciplinary regulations, and to 
provide accommodation for six scholars. Evelyn himself 
undertook to fill three of the scholars’ cells, and to contribute 
to the carrying out of the project almost a third of its 
initial costs, which he estimated at £1600. Cowley’s plan, 
published in 1661 as A Proposition for the Advancement of 
Experimental Philosophy,*® was very much more pretenti- 
ous than Evelyn’s. The proposal followed Bacon’s con- 
ception of a philosophical college by embodying a pedagog- 
ical as well as an investigative purpose. Cowley’s proposi- 
tion is worked out with elaborate detail, and calls for an 
annual income of £4000 for the support of ‘‘ Twenty Philos- 
ophers or Professors,’’ ‘‘Sixteen young Scholars, Servants 
of the Professors,’’ and a veritable army of assistants and 
menials. There are noteworthy echoes of the details of 
Salomon’s House, as for instance, ‘‘a Gallery to walk in, 
adorned with the Pictures or Statues of all the Inventors 
of any thing useful to Humane Life,’’ ‘‘a very high Tower 
for observation of Celestial Bodies,’’ and ‘‘very deep Vaults 
made under ground, for Experiments most proper to such 
places.’’ An interesting feature is provision for a public 
school for two hundred boys, to be trained from youth in the 
methods of experimental investigation. 

But the faults of the various schemes which aimed to 
make scholars either recluses or pedagogues were probably 
too self-evident to carry any of these plans further than the 
point of careful elaboration. In addition, a more natural 
development in the direction of organized and collective 
research had been in progress since 1645, when the informal 
meetings of a group of experimental philosophers laid the 
foundations of what the future was to name the Royal 
Society.*® This group became divided about 1648, by reason 

88 Abraham Cowley, Essays, Plays and sundry Verses, Edited by 


A. R. Waller, 1906; 243-258. 
39 Weld, op. cit., I, 30-40. 


54 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


of the removal of some of the leading members, into Bishop 
Wilkins’s so-called Philosophical Society of Oxford, and a 
continuation in London, in which Boyle was active, of the 
former society, which seems to have borne the name of the 
‘‘Invisible College.’’ Either, or rather both, of these 
societies may be regarded as parent of the Royal Society, 
the existence of which is generally dated from the revival 
of the scientific meetings at the time of the Restoration, and 
which was chartered by Charles IT in 1662. In view of the 
immediate popularity and scientific success of the Royal 
Society in its chosen field, it is matter of real wonder, that, 
as we have seen, its example met with no emulative inter- 
est in any other field of research for a period of almost 
fifty years after its organization. In fact, the only new 
society for experimental philosophy founded before the end 
of the century was the Philosophical Society of Ireland (the 
predecessor of the Royal Irish Academy), established upon 
the model of the Royal Society by Sir William Petty in 
1683.*° 

Before leaving this period in the growth and application 
of learned society functions, it remains to review cursorily 
a few literary, political, and antiquarian gatherings which,’ 
because of the direction of their purposes or the literary 
importance of their members, deserve at least a passing note 
of recognition. 

The earliest of these of which we have record is the well- 
known assemblage of churchmen and philosophers which 
met at Falkland’s estate at Great Tew, about 1633.41 Most 

40 Edmond Fitzmaurice, Life of Sir William Petty, 1895; 253. 

41 Lady Theresa Lewis’s picture of this coterie (Lives of the 
Friends and Contemporaries of Lord Chancellor Clarendon, 1852, I, 
9-11) is at once the most vivid and the most agreeable. She takes 
her material from both Clarendon and Wood, the latter of whom is 
probably indebted, as in many other instances, to Aubrey. See also 


J. A. R. Marriot’s Life and Times of Lucius Cary, Viscount Falk- 
land, 1907, 79-122. 


THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 55 


of the members of this group held academic positions at 
Oxford, which was within convenient travelling distance. 
Among the most important of these were Charles Gataker, 
William Chillingworth, and George Sandys, the poet. This 
body of men has been referred to as anticipating the society 
activities of a later period ;*? but the fragmentary records 
of the gathering seem to show that they were held together 
solely by the community of their interests and occupations. 
The note of their unity seems to have been absolute freedom 
from collective responsibilities; and it is, indeed, not too 
much to say that intellectual solidarity in this case was 
maintained by a spiritual, rather than by a scholarly, 
earnestness, to which formal organization would have been 
only baneful. 

About 1651 was established another body whose bond of 
union was as intangible and unutilitarian as that of Falk- 
land’s friends, but in this instance as much a sentimental as 
a spiritual bond. This was the so-called Society of Friend- 
ship of Katherine Philips.** It possesses a special interest 
for the student of literature in the fact that it was in re- 
sponse to The Matchless Orinda’s request to compose a 
defence of the idealized friendship which was the cause and 
the end of their association that Jeremy Taylor, who was 
one of the number, wrote his Discourse of the Nature and 
Offices of Friendship, dedicated to Mrs. Philips. Here 
again, then, we find an organization of only the most casual 
literary importance. 

Investigative or critical purposes, however, are apparently 
suggested in two intrinsically important records of the year 


1659. Aubrey** and Pepys*® have both left notes upon the 

42 Foster Watson, in Cambridge History of English Literature, 
VII, 305, 1911. 

43 Edmund Gosse, Jeremy Taylor, 1904; 138-140. 

44 John Aubrey, Brief Lives, edited by Andrew Clark, 1898; I, 
289-291. 

45 The Diary of Samuel Pepys, edited by Henry B. Wheatley, 
1893-9; I, 14 n., 20, 59. 


56 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


‘*Rota,’’ or ‘‘Club of Commonwealth Men,’’ which, meeting 
first as a coffee-house gathering, attained eventually to 
recognition as a society. Aubrey records the manner of 
their meeting, and their purpose—to discuss questions of 
government as projected in Harrington’s Oceana, and espe- 
cially in the light of the current Parliamentary abuses. 
This club, of which the memorable Cyriack Skinner was 
chairman, and which was sustained by sufficient enthusiasm 
to support nightly meetings, was only short-lived, dissolving 
within a few months after its formation, ‘‘upon the un- 
expected turne upon generall Monke’s comeing in.’’ The 
other meeting recorded for this year is that of the ‘‘ Anti- 
quaries’ feast,’’ referred to in a memorandum in Ashmole’s 
diary, July 2, 1659. Richard Gough, without a trace of 
justification, interprets this entry as evidence that the 
Society of Antiquaries which had dissolved in 1614 had 
‘‘remained as it were in abeyance.’’*® But Joseph Hunter 
suggests more convincingly that the Antiquaries of 1659 
‘‘ean have been only a small private club.’’*? 

A reminiscence, in name at least, of Harrington’s Rota is 
found in a pamphlet published in 1673, an attack upon 
Dryden’s Conquest of Granada, under the title The Censure 
of the Rota on Mr. Driden’s Conquest of Granada, which 
purports to be a record of the criticisms of the play 
gathered from the discussions of the ‘‘ Athenian Virtuosi.”’ 
The pamphlet opened a controversy in which three other 
publications appeared,*® and which was noticed briefly by 
Dryden in his preface to The Assignation.*® The names 
‘‘Rota’’ and ‘‘ Athenian Virtuosi’’ which appear in this 

46 Op. cit., Archaeologia, I, xxii, 1777. 

47 Op. cit., Archaeologia, XXXII, 148, 1847. 

48 Robert W. Lowe, Bibliographical Account of English theatrical 
Literature, 1888; 102. 


49 John Dryden, Works, edited by Scott and Saintsbury, 18 v., 
1882-93; IV, 376. 


THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 57 


controversy are clearly intended to convey the idea that 
the criticism of the first pamphlet was backed by something 
like collective opinion; but all contemporary references to 
the dispute seem to accept it as a quarrel of individuals. 
This inference is supported by the fact that the author of 
the first pamphlet—all four were issued anonymously—is 
known to have been Richard Leigh. It is, then, very doubt- 
ful whether the Athenian Virtuosi can be considered 
seriously as a bona-fide society.°° 

The Athenian Society, which has sometimes been con- 
fused with the Athenian Virtuosi, was founded by John 
Dunton, the London publisher, in 1691. Although the 
History of the Athenian Society, published in the year of 
organization, invites comparison of the aims of this society 
with those of the Royal Society, the real purpose of founda- 
tion was to publish a periodical, which soon became popular 
and which lived for the rather unusual period of six years— 
the Athenian Gazette, afterwards called the Athenian Mer- 
cury. All the evidence shows this society to have been a 
wholly private project of Dunton’s, established for his 
purposes as printer and publisher and administered solely 
by him. His fellow-members, who were during the period 
of the Gazette’s existence only three in number, acted 
simply in the capacity of associate editors for Dunton’s 
publishing schemes. The name of the society continued in 
Dunton’s possession and use after the discontinuation of 
the Gazette, certainly down to the year 1710. There is, we 
see, then, no valid ground for considering the Athenian 
Society at all comparable in its purposes or methods to the 
class of society with which we are dealing.®? 

Daniel Defoe records for us the interesting fact that, at — 

50 This subject I have discussed at considerable length in my 
article The Athenian Virtuosi and the Athenian Society; Modern 


Language Review, VII, 358-371, 1912. 
51 [bid., 363-371. 


58 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


some time prior to the publication of his Essay on Projects, 
in 1698, he was a member of a ‘‘literary society,’’ which 
concerned itself at least in part with the familiar plan for 
the improving of the tongue.®? Whether Defoe meant by 
literary society a society devoted to the study of belles- 
lettres from any point of view is very much to be doubted ; 
for this narrower definition of literature is in our language 
one of relatively recent acceptance. Until well into the 
nineteenth century, as a matter of fact, this term “‘literary 
society’’ was applied to any investigative society which en- 
couraged so-called literary exercises, such as the reading of 
papers, or general publication.** 

Evidence of the rapid popularization of the society idea 
in England during the closing years of this century and the 
first years of the eighteenth is seen in the wide expansion of 
local religious societies, such as the noted Society for the 
Propagation of Christian Knowledge.** 

We have seen, then, that the history of experimental” 
science in England during the seventeenth century is in the 
main the history of the opening of the continuous tradition 
of learned society activities in England. The Royal Society 
was the first permanent foundation of the learned society 
type, and the seriousness and effectiveness of its scholarly 
labors set the example for organization of a similar sort in 
other fields of study, although the force of example was 
slow to assert itself during the hundred years following the 
Royal Society’s incorporation. In spite, therefore, of the 

52 Daniel Defoe, Earlier Life and Chief Earlier Works. Ed. Henry 
Morley, 1889, 124-5. 

53 On the history of the emergence of the modern sense of the 
word ‘‘literary,’’? see Ewald Fligel’s Bacon’s Historia Literaria, 
Anglia, XXI, 259-288, 1899. 

54 Edward Chamberlayne, Angliae Notitiae or the present State of 


England. Continued by his son, John Chamberlayne, 21st ed., 1704, 
331-336. 


THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 59 


general recognition, by the end of the seventeenth century, 
of the usefulness of organization in the interests of scholar- 
ship, we can sum up the slow progress of the idea into gen- 
eral application in the opening words of Defoe’s chapter on 
Academies :°°> ‘‘We have in England fewer of these than 
in any part of the world, at least where learning is in so 
much esteem.”’ 
55 Daniel Defoe, op. cit., 524. 


CHAPTER IV 


THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 


We have seen that during the seventeenth century there 
was no impetus to collective engagement in historical 
scholarship in literature. In England, in fact, there was no 
effective collaboration even for the etymological study of 
the vernacular, which had first assumed importance in the 
discussions of Parker’s Society, and which, on the Conti- 
nent, had constituted part of the labor of the French Acad- 
emy, and practically the chief scholarly interest of the 
Fruchtbringende Gesellschaft.2 There was throughout the 
century, however, a wholly natural tendency for anti- 
quarian scholars to seek association or at least to carry on 
correspondence with men of their own inclinations. Thus 
in the early part of the centtry there was a more or less 
frequent interchange of ideas and measures of assistance 
between Cotton, Usher, Spelman, Camden, Casaubon, and 
their contemporaries ;* and in the mid-century, as we have 
seen, between Spelman, Dugdale, Wheelocke and D’Ewes.* 
But the very narrowness of the current interest in anti- 
quarian studies, and especially in the literature of English 
antiquity, made it almost inevitable that material advance 
in these studies should be effected through a more regular 
coordination among scholars than the century had as yet 
produced. The needed incentive was supplied largely in 

1 Ante, 7, 35. 

21. W. Barthold, Geschichte der Fruchtbringenden Gesellschaft, 
111, 242-7 (1848). 

3 Original Letters of eminent literary Men... 1848, 102-164; 
Gulielmi Camden et illustrium Virorum ad G. Camdenum Epistolae, 
1691, passim. 

4 Ante, 22-3; also Ellis’s Original Letters, 153-161, 174-6. 


60 


THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 61 


the person of Junius, whose learning and personality con- 
eentrated about himself much of the activity in Anglo- 
Saxon studies during the latter half of the century.® Later, 
among Gibson, Hickes, Tanner, Kennet, and Nicolson there 
was occasional correspondence on scholarly questions, relat- 
ing principally to Anglo-Saxon desiderata and publications 
in preparation.® But the fact that all of these last named 
students of Old English were important and busy church- 
men, who were prevented by ecclesiastical responsibilities 
from meeting one another at all regularly, removed the 
possibility of formal action for the furtherance of literary 
scholarship. 

Anything in the nature of an effective organization for 
such purposes was therefore suspended until the early 
eighteenth century, when the Oxford group of Anglo-Saxon 
scholars had partly spent their productive power. The 
new impetus to the study of old English literature and 
antiquities was given by a number of scholars practically 
self-educated in the old vernacular, some of them scarcely 
touched by the tradition of culture. Such were Humphrey 
Wanley, Thomas Hearne, John Bagford, George Ballard, 
William Elstob, and Elizabeth Elstob, the last a protégée of 
Ballard’s, and one of the most truly erudite of the class of 
learned ladies which Ballard made it his pleasure to defend. 
Despite the educational disadvantages of these scholars, 
their work was characterized by a fervor of interest and 
activity which produced results quite as praiseworthy, and 
in at least Wanley’s case, quite as monumental, as any pub- 
‘lications in the previous history of English literary studies. 
Barring Hearne, whose vanity, jealousy, and ill temper 
prevented his working harmoniously with his fellows, most 

5 Ante, 49, note. 

6 Letters to and from William Nicolson, [edited by] John Nichols, 
1809, passim; [‘‘Letters from the Bodleian’’], 1813, passim; Ellis’s 
Original Letters, passim. 


62 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


of these students were, like their predecessors, bound to- 
gether by a useful common interest. 

This general solidarity, however, was furthered at an 
early period by an actual organization which for the moment 
seemed to promise much for the immediate future of Anglo- 
Saxon study, but which because of an entire diversion of its 
interests to the field of monumental antiquities, such as 
seems to have occurred at an early date in Parker’s society,’ 
failed to perfect a program for the resuscitation of literary 
studies. 

In 1707, we learn from notes made by Wanley himself,® 
John Talman, artist-antiquary, and John Bagford, literary 
antiquary and collector of the so-called ‘‘ Bagford Ballads,’’ 
agreed with Wanley to meet together for the discussion of 
antiquarian subjects. These meetings were informal, and 
increase in the numbers of the gathering was slow; but 
within two months eight members were assembling with 
more or less regularity. Among the first of the newer mem- 
bers were the distinguished Peter Le Neve, subsequently 
chosen as president of the society, and William Elstob, the 
Anglo-Saxon scholar, both of whom were introduced by 
Wanley. <A typical evening’s communications show the 
material for discussion on at least this one occasion to have 
been historical documents of practically no literary impor- 
tance. There is real significance, however, in the bearing 
of the literary occupations of Bagford, Elstob, and particu- 
larly Wanley, upon the character of the society’s discus- 
sions. Whether Wanley, who seems to have been the leader 
during the period of organization, intended the activities 
of the club to have been devoted largely to literary remains 
cannot be said with any degree of certainty; but consider- 
ing his intense preoccupation with English palaeography 

7 Ante, 7, 35. 

8 Nichols, Literary Anecdotes, VI, 147-8. 


THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 63 


and bibliography,’ it seems inevitable that at least these easy 
informal meetings of the group must very frequently have 
touched literary antiquities. It is indeed quite certain that 
the province of the society’s interest during this early 
period was supposed to include ancient English literature; 
for in a list of proposed publications which Richard Gough 
believes to have represented Wanley’s own plans for the 
society’s special field of study’® we find a number of 
thoroughly significant entries. ‘‘ Volumes of several old 
English historians, not yet printed’’ are mentioned as 
among the general desiderata; and in the list of ‘‘good 
books wanted’’ are found ‘‘A Glossary, including Somner, 
Spelman, Cowel. &c. and new words from charters, and 
other MSS; .. . A Compleat Anglo-Saxon Bible; another 
Bible of Wickliffe’s time, with a comparative account of 
later editions and translations; a dictionary for fixing the 
English language, as the French and Italian; .. . a body 
of Saxon laws and homilies; a Cento Saxonicus, and a Brit- 
tania Saxonica, desired by Dr. Hickes; Of the use of 
musick, interludes, masques, and plays in England.’’ Such 
a list of projected publications bespeaks for Wanley the 
distinction of having been the first, as far as history re- 
counts, to have proposed a society for the publication of 
historical and literary texts, documents, and treatises. The 
realization of his plan, however, in a manner as systematic 
and as generally effective as he had anticipated, was to be 
deferred for more than a century. 

It may readily be seen why Wanley’s plans for publica- 

9 Wanley had already published in the Philosophical Transactions 
of the Royal Society, of which he was a member, a paper on the 
age of manuscripts, and had collaborated with Bagford in an essay 
on the history of printing. See the Philosophical Transactions of the 
Royal Society, abridged by Charles Hutton, George Shaw, and 


Richard Pearson, 1809; V, 227-237, 350-354. 
10 Richard Gough, op. cit., Archaeologia, I, xxix—xxxi, 


64 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


tion were not then realized. In the first place, the small 
number of the early members could not have prosecuted 
so huge a task as Wanley’s proposal outlines; in the second 
place, the expense of publication of textual reprints and 
books with engraved illustrations was then very high, and 
sales, therefore, were difficult and slow. These two condi- 
tions, the history of modern printing societies has shown 
us, are precisely those that collective publication is most 
effective in meeting, given either a wealthy organization, 
or an extended public interest in the society’s aims; but 
Wanley’s group of associates were neither numerous nor 
wealthy, and it can not be said that there was as yet any- 
thing like an extensive popular interest in antiquities, 
though this was soon to develop with the growing impor- 
tance of the work of the Society of Antiquaries. 

Meanwhile Wanley’s gathering seems to have progressed 
along precisely the lines of Parker’s ‘‘assembly,’’ in con- 
fining its attention generally to the legal, numismatic, and 
monumental sides of antiquarianism. In 1717 the society 
took definite steps toward an effective establishment, and 
Le Neve was elected its first president. From this time on 
its activity and influence became much greater; but although 
it included in its membership down to the mid-century such 
scholars as Rymer, John Warburton (whose name is insep- 
arably associated with the manuscripts which his careless 
servant cut up for humble culinary uses), George Ballard, 
Sir John Clerk of Penecuik, Robert Stephens, Historiog- 
rapher Royal, Edward Lye, Dr. John Ward, who presented 
to the society in 1758 his Four Essays upon the English 
Language,* and others largely interested in the historical 
study of English literature, special attention to this field 


11 Edward William Brabrook, Fellows of the Society of Antiquaries 
who have held the Office of Director, Archaeologia, LXII, 67 (1910). 


THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 65 


seems to have been abandoned even before the formal 
organization in 1717. 

The society was not actually incorporated until 1751.1? 
As early as 1754 it was decided that some form of publica- 
tion should be issued;?* the first volume of Archaeologia, 
however, did not appear until 1770. From this time on 
articles of literary bearing appeared in the society’s publi- 
cation,'* but with such infrequency as to emphasize the fact 
that this body, which in its inception had promised so well 
for the study of English letters, did not possess during the 
eighteenth century a very real importance in this field. 
Indeed, there seems ground to believe that shortly after the 
middle of the century the society took occasion to discour- 
age efforts to gain recognition for Anglo-Saxon literary 
scholarship as one of its proper interests. Edward Rowe 
Mores wrote Ducarel in 1753 that the Society of Antiquaries 
had refused to undertake to print Junius’s unpublished 
index to his edition of Caedmon, together with plates of 
drawings of the Caedmon manuscript.” It is not wholly 
clear from the substance of the letter, in fact, that Mores 
did not mean to say that the society really gave its refusal to a 
project for the publication of an entirely new text and 
translation of Caedmon; and it is apparently in this sense 
that Thorpe has construed Mores’s letter.1° It may be said 
to be practically certain, in any event, that since the society 
refused to lend its aid to the publication of these important 
Caedmon items, its decision implied a positive unwillingness 
to include among its functions the publication of materials 
for Anglo-Saxon textual scholarship. 

12 Gough, op. cit., Xxxix, 

13 Nichols, Literary Anecdotes, V, 392. 

14 Post, 91-2, 119-20. 

15 Nichols, Literary Anecdotes, V, 403-4. 


16 Caedmon’s Metrical Paraphrase of Parts of the Holy Scriptures 
in Anglo-Saxon, London, 1832; vi. 


6 


66 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


That Wanley’s advanced plan for a publishing society 
did not develop as he had intended is very much to be 
regretted. It seems probable that if the idea of collective 
publication had become established in the early eighteenth 
century, the interest in old literature and in manuscript 
materials so painstakingly cultivated by Ramsay, Percy, 
Ritson, and later scholars might have been much more 
rapidly diffused, with the result that much of the spolia- 
tion and disappearance of the materials of literary study 
might have been prevented. Hearne himself, who had 
little sympathy with the Society of Antiquaries, and little 
liking for many of its members, recognized the great oppor- 
tunity when he complained to James West that ‘‘Societies 
should engage in some great Works, either never yet printed, 
or, if printed, are become either almost or quite as rare 
as MSS.’’?? 

There can scarcely be a question that Joseph Stukeley, 
the first secretary of the Society after its establishment in 
1717, and his close friends and associates, the influential 
members of the Antiquaries, who included Roger Gale, 
Maurice Johnson, Sir John Clerk, Samuel Knight and 
others, were interested almost exclusively in the archaeo- 
logical side of antiquities.t® Stukeley himself is the very 
type of the antiquary of his day, much concerned with 
earthworks, burial-places, ruins and coins, and generally 
an efficient and industrious student of a subject that has 

17 Hearne, Remarks and Collections, VIII, 336 (1907). It is in- 
teresting to note in this connection that although Hearne was never 
a member of the Society of Antiquaries, but took every opportunity 
to ridicule the members and their affairs, he himself was a member 
of an informal club of antiquaries at Oxford (Remarks and Col- 
lections, VI, 216). 

18 See the voluminous correspondence of Stukeley and his friends 
in Memoirs of William Stukeley, and the Correspondence of Wil- 
liam Stukeley, Roger and Samuel Gale, etc., 3 v., Surtees Society, 
1882-7. 


THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 67 


always attracted largely a dilettante following. It must 
be a matter of constant wonder that for such students the 
literary remains of the antiquity which they professed to 
reverence apparently had no charm. The reason is prob- 
ably to be found in the fact that Anglo-Saxon studies were 
in those days nothing to the amateur if not taken seriously ; 
and with all that can be said in praise of Stukeley and his 
associates, it must be confessed that their interest in antiq- 
uities was very amateurish. Stukeley’s own opinion of the 
particular direction of antiquarian study that Wanley 
endeavored to encourage is to be seen in his exulting tran- 
scription of a passage in criticism of Hearne and his labors: 
‘*Every monkish tale & lye & miracle & ballad are rescued 
from their dust & worms, to proclaim the poverty of our 
forefathers, whose nakedness, it seems, their pious posterity 
take great pleasure to pry into; for of all those writings 
given us by the learned Oxford antiquary, there is not one 
that is not a disgrace to letters, most of them are so to 
common sense, & some even to human nature.’’?® 

Such was the catholicity of cultivated taste in the earlier 
half of this century that we find that many of the members 
of the Society of Antiquaries, and especially of this par- 
ticular group, were also members of the Royal Society. It 
must be confessed, however, that Clerk, with his notion that 
the migrations of wild-fowl were accomplished with the 
aid of the diurnal motion of the earth,?° and Stukeley, with 
a tenacious devotion to his hypothesis that earthquakes 
-were the result of atmospheric conditions,”* were not among 
the most responsible of the members of the Royal Society. 

For the cause of learned societies in general Stukeley’s 
circle did much of real importance. Their zeal in the 

19 Stukeley’s Memoirs and Correspondence, I, 199. 

20 Ibid., I, 247-258. 

21 Ibid., I, 478, II, 379, 382-3. 


68 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


service of society projects was so effective that they were 
responsible. for the establishment of a number of lesser 
assemblies which maintained for many years an active cor- 
respondence with the Antiquaries of London. The most 
important of the societies organized by these evangelists of 
antiquarianism was the Gentlemen’s Society of Spalding, 
which began its informal meetings in 1710, and effected a 
voluntary organization in 1712.2? Of this society, some 
words later. The example set by the Spalding society was 
followed in the establishment of another Gentlemen’s So- 
ciety at Peterborough,”?* and in 1721 of a society of similar 
aims at Stamford, which Stukeley attempted to revive in 
1745 under the name of the Brazennose Society.** In addi- 
tion to these, Gough records the existence of a like body 
at Doneaster,?®> and Maurice Johnson, in a letter to Dr. 
Andrew Ducarel, mentions other societies of the same 
nature at Worcester, Wisbech, Lincoln, and Dublin.® 
Stukeley himself notes two ‘‘vertuoso meetings’’ which he 
established in London after the organization of the Society 
of Antiquaries, and ‘‘meetings’’ also at Market Overton 
and West Deeping.?” Many of these assemblies were in all 
probability little more than small friendly gatherings of 
amateurs; but the more important societies had very repu- 
table intellectual standing and numerous membership, those 
at Spalding and Peterborough including about one hundred 
members each, and carrying some really distinguished 
names on their rosters. 

The Spalding society, which may be taken as the type of 
all of these organizations, originated, like the Antiquaries 

22 Nichols, Literary Anecdotes, VI, 5, 59. 

23 Ibid., 4, 136-9. | 

24 Ibid., 4-5. 

25 Ibid., 4. 

26 [bid., 144-5. 

27 Stukeley’s Memoirs and Correspondence, I, 122-3. 


THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 69 


of London, in an informal club, meeting in this case at a 
coffee-house, instead of a tavern, and subscribing to literary 
periodicals, the first of which was the Tatler.® The society 
recognized from its beginning a formal relation to the 
Society of Antiquaries, giving itself the name of a ‘‘cell’’ 
to the London society, and maintaining with it an uninter- 
rupted correspondence over a period of forty years. The 
purposes of the Spalding society, however, were not exclu- 
Sively antiquarian. Roger Gale wrote Maurice Johnson 
in 1735, ‘‘ You have infinitely the advantage of our Anti- 
quarian Society at London, which confines itself to that 
study and knowledge onely, whereas you take in, and very 
rightly too, the whole compasse of learning and philosophy, 
and so comprehend at once the ends and institution of both 
our London Societys.’’® Maurice Johnson wrote to Tim- 
othy Neve in 1745/6, ‘‘We deal in all arts and sciences, and 
exclude nothing from our conversation but politics, which 
would throw us all into confusion and disorder.’’*° These 
quotations convey the sense of the ‘‘Rules and Orders’’ of 
the society, which were adopted in 1725.*+ The purposes 
of this society, then, are to be taken as miscellaneous. 

The society took a rather active, though possibly not 
specially discriminating interest in contemporary literature. 
Pope, Addison, and Bentley were among its honorary mem- 
bers ;32 Gay was both a member and an occasional corre- 
spondent ;** original poems were among the communica- 
tions to the society throughout its existence, including 

28 Nichols, op. cit., VI, 6. 

29 Stukeley’s Memoirs and Correspondence, III, 129. 

80 Nichols, op. cit., VI, 6-7. 

31 Ibid., 29-32. 7 

82 Ibid., VI, 106; William Moore, The Gentlemen’s Society at 
Spalding (in Memoirs of the Archaeological Institute of Great Britain 


and Ireland, Lincoln, July, 1848, 82-89 (1850)), 87. 
33 Nichols, op. cit., 84-5. 


70 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


manuscript poems by Prior and Pope,** and newly issued 
pieces by Parnell, Swift, Arbuthnot, and Eusden, and 
Gray’s Hlegy;** in addition, the society subseribed during 
its early period not only to the Tatler, but to the most im- 
portant of the literary periodicals of the day, including the 
Guardian and the Lover,*® and later the Rambler.** 

This degree and kind of interest in literature is, however, 
what obviously might be expected of a ‘‘Gentlemen’s So- 
ciety’? in any age. Whether the range of the society’s 
interests may be assumed to have included the historical 
study of literature is more to be doubted, if we consider 
the personnel of the society and the spirit of the times. 
That literary history received at least occasional attention, 
however, seems to be indicated in a few scattered records 
of the society. In 1725, for example, the society voted to 
‘‘take in’’ the Bibliotheca Interaria and Memoirs of Lat- 
erature.2® The ‘‘Gentlemen’s Library at Spaldwin’’ ap- 
pears also in the list of subscribers to Junius’s Htymologi- 
cum Anglicanum in 1748. That at least one member pos- 
sessed a live interest in English literary history may be 
seen in Beaupré Bell’s intention, expressed in- 1733/4, to 
publish an edition of Chaucer, to which end he had at that 
time collated a number of manuscripts.*® But such in- 
stances as these can not be made to serve as evidence that 
the society as a whole felt any collective responsibility for 
the study of English literature. Barring, therefore, an 
occasional proof of incidental or individual interest in this 
field, it is probably safe to assume that, as Roger Gale 
expressed it, ‘‘the whole compasse of learning and phi- 

34 Ibid., 67-8. 

35 Moore, op. cit., 84—5. 

36 Nichols, op. cit., VI, 62. 

87 Moore, op. cit., 88. 

38 Nichols, op. cit., VI, 32. 

39 Stukeley’s Memoirs and Correspondence, II, 22. 


THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY wa 


losophy’’ which the society chose as its province compre- 
hended in reality no more than the special and restricted 
‘fends and institutions’’ of the Society of Antiquaries and 
the Royal Society. 

What is apparently true of the Gentlemen’s Society of 
Spalding is in all probability true of the Stamford, the 
Peterborough, and the other local societies. Although they 
may have possessed an occasional and casual interest in 
literature as a branch of antiquarian study, their records 
convey to us no intimation of a vital and consistent interest 
in this field for its own sake. 

Although an organization of no special importance to 
literary studies, the Society of the Dilettanti must be men- 
tioned in passing as the first of the book clubs, a class of 
organizations which became very popular during the first 
half of the nineteenth century, and which without doubt 
was the most powerful single influence upon the growth of 
collective scholarship during this later period. The Dilet- 
tanti were, as their name may imply, a small group of 
wealthy and aristocratic travellers who combined the ambi- 
tion of transmitting to England the culture of classical 
times with the solidly practical idea of dining well at more 
or less frequent intervals. The members were not renowned 
for scholarly attainments; but their position enabled them 
to exercise a not unwise patronage of real workers in their 
field. The Society was from the beginning small and ex- 
elusive, and did not pretend to exist for philanthropic pur- 
poses. It was founded in 1734 (possibly as early as 1732) ,*° 
and accomplished little for the diffusion of the culture it 
nominally supported within its own circle until almost thirty 
years later. Then it undertook to contribute to the expense 
of publication of Stuart and Revett’s Antiquities of Athens, 

40 History of the Society of the Dilettantt, compiled by Lionel Cust, 
and edited by Sidney Colvin, 1898; 4-5. 


72 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


which appeared in 1762.4 The first work actually pub- 
lished by the Society was its onan Antiquities, the first 
volume of which was issued in 1769, and the fourth in 1882. 
In the issue of Payne Knight’s Account of the Worship of 
Priapus, 1786, which was not distributed beyond the actual 
membership of the society except as signed presentation 
copies,*” we find foreshadowed the much deprecated custom 
of the printing clubs of the nineteenth century of placing 
strict limits upon the circulation of their issues. In this first 
instance, however, there were of course special reasons for 
such a restriction which could not hold good for the books 
of the Roxburghe Club and its successors. The subsequent 
activities of the Dilettanti Society, which still continues in 
existence, have no significance for our purposes; but the 
importance of the society as the forerunner of all our 
modern organizations of this well known type cannot be 
disregarded. 

In Scotland during the greater part of the eighteenth 
century an interest in ‘societies on the part of cultivated 
men, especially in the university towns, was one of the most 
characteristic marks of the intellectual activity of the 
period. We have seen*® that the Royal Society grew out of 
a private gathering of experimental philosophers, that the 
Society of Antiquaries was merely the more formal continu- 
ation of private meetings in the Bear Tavern,** and that 
the Spalding Gentlemen’s Society, with probably most of 
the other local societies of its time, was begun in a similar 
irregular fashion. In the main, however, it is impossible 
to trace from the English coffee-house clubs, and other in- 
formal gatherings which were so marked a feature of social 
life in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, any very 

41 Ibid., 79-81. 

42 Ibid., 122-3, 

43 Ante, 53-4. 

44 See also Nichols, Literary Anecdotes, VI, 147. 


THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 73 


general effect upon scholarly organization, much as we 
should naturally be led to expect such an effect. The 
notable exception seems to have been Johnson’s literary 
elub, to which we shall return; but in considering even this 
conspicuous instance, we must remember that this club 
grew out of established literary associations, and that its 
slight potential effect upon literary scholarship owed little 
to the mere fact of its existence. It is apparently true, 
then, that the few academic bodies which carried the whole 
vitality of the learned society movement in England through 
the eighteenth century had their origins in something 
closely akin to club gatherings. But the special develop- 
ment of English club life throughout this century had 
seemingly no connection with the learned society movement, 
since these clubs themselves were a divergent growth, and 
their character was in all cases almost purely social and not 
seriously intellectual. It would be impossible to assume, 
for example, that the frequenters of Button’s or Will’s re- 
garded their casual meetings as anything but pure relaxa- 
tion. In Seotland, however, the case was quite different; 
for here we find the social—even convivial—gatherings of 
the time developing into associations for the discussion, or 
more properly for the actual study, of the most profound 
subjects, and with an intellectual conscience that would 
have done credit to the Royal Society. Indeed, a compari- 
son of the whole body of members of some of the mid-cen- 
tury Scottish societies, small and private as they were, with 
the larger and more widely important Royal and Anti- 
quarian Societies of London would force us to admit that in 
actual intellectual impressiveness the Scotsmen were by no 
means the inferiors. 

The first of these clubs of which we have record was the 
Rankenian Club at Edinburgh, named from its place of 


74 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


meeting, and dating from about 1716.4° Dugald Stewart 
tells us that this club, which was composed in part of stu- 
dents at the University, corresponded with Bishop Berkeley 
on various questions connected with his idealistic philo- 
sophical views.*® This society continued a more or less 
regular existence down to the year 1774. 

A society for classical studies was established in Hdin- 
burgh within two years of the first stated meetings of the 
Rankenian Club. Thomas Ruddiman was one of the 
founders of this body, and the distinguished Lord Kames 
became a member at an early date.**7 This society, although 
nominally given over to deliberations on classical subjects, 
in all probability had a more general literary program, in- 
cluding the aim of improvement in composition and speak- 
ing, which seems to have been a common object among all 
such societies in Scotland during this period. 

The most important, and, with its descendants, the most 
permanent, of these organizations, however, originated in 
Edinburgh in 1731 as a strictly medical society ; and as such 
it published in its earliest years five volumes of transactions. 
In 1739, at the suggestion of Professor Maclaurin, one of its 
secretaries, the plan of the society was enlarged to include 
philosophical and literary subjects—‘‘literary’’ compre- 
hending, as it almost invariably did throughout the eight- 
eenth century, every interest without the domains of theol- 
ogy, philosophy, and science.*® With its new fields of 
activity the society became known as the Philosophical 
Society of Edinburgh. Judging from the three volumes of 

45 Alexander Fraser Tytler, Memoirs of Henry Home of Kames, 
2d ed., 1814; I, 243, III, 75-7. 

46 Dugald Stewart, Collected Works, 1854-8; I, 350-1. 

47 George Chalmers, Life of Thomas Ruddiman, 1794; 83-4. 

48 For the entire early history of this society see the anonymous 


History of the Society in Transactions of the Royal Society of Edin- 
burgh, I, 3-22, 1788. 


THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 75 


Essays and Observations*® which were issued by the society 
in 1754, 1756, and 1771, the interests of the body were still 
predominantly in the sphere of medical science; but a few 
of the essays deal with physical subjects. There is no really 
literary paper in the three volumes. That the literary side 
of the society’s program was not merely nominal, however, 
may be seen in the fact that Sir John Clerk of -Penecuik 
read before the society in 1742 ‘‘ An Inquiry into the An- 
cient Languages of Great Britain.’”®° This paper possesses 
of course a special interest as an early society communica- 
tion preserved for us in toto. The only paper definitely 
attempting to cover the historical position of the English 
language which was before this time prepared for a learned 
society and is still preserved even in abstract, was Edward 
Lhwyd’s ‘‘Observations on Ancient Languages,’’ read be- 
fore the Royal Society in 1698.5' As between the two 
papers there is perhaps little to choose. Lhwyd’s appears 
from its abstract to have been meagre, trivial, and un- 
scholarly. Clerk’s deserves genuine commendation for its 
relative freedom from the a priori judgments and supersti- 
tious prejudices of former writers in regard to the anti- 
quity and linguistic relationships of the English tongue.*? 
But on the score of general merits it must be said that Clerk 
was radically and blindly wrong in his interpretation of 
clear historical evidence. Considering what Junius and a 
dozen native scholars such as Camden and Hickes had 

49 Hssays and Observations, read before a Society in Edinburgh, 
3 v., 1754-71. 

50 Memoirs of Sir John Clerk of Penecuk, edited by John M. Gray, 
1892; 165. The entire paper was communicated by Clerk to Roger 
Gale in the same year, and is reprinted in Stukeley’s Memoirs and 
Correspondence, I, 339-357. 

51 Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society abridged, 1809; 
IV, 300-1. 

52 On this point see Lhwyd’s Observations, and Letters to and from 
William Nicolson, 79-80, 114. 


76 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


accomplished in ‘‘placing’’ the English tongue with refer- 
ence to related linguistic stocks, it is remarkable that such 
ineptitude as is exhibited in the ill-informed and erratic 
productions of Lhwyd and Clerk should be the only docu- 
ments left to us to represent the quality of the interest of 
the learned bodies of the day in their own vernacular. 
Nothing can serve as clearer evidence of the general in- 
difference of the men of learning of that time to anything 
like a fundamental study of English philology. 

The existence of the Edinburgh Philosophical Society 
was interrupted during and after the rebellion of 1745. 
When the society was revived in 1752 David Hume became 
one of its two secretaries.°? After the publication of the 
first two volumes of the Essays and Observations, the society 
seems to have dropped again into desuetude; but under the 
presidency of Lord Kames it enjoyed a period of prosperity 
until 1782. In this year a project was offered by Principal 
Robertson to reorganize the society upon the more public 
and useful academy plan. Accordingly the Royal Society 
of Edinburgh was incorporated by royal charter in the 
following year, and the members of the Philosophical 
Society were entered as members of the new institution.** 
The charter of the new society defines its purposes as ex- 
tending not merely to the theoretical and useful sciences, 
but to archaeology, philology, and literature.°> For the 
furtherance of this plan the organization was divided into 
two classes, the Physical, and the Literary, and it is interest- 
ing to note that in the early years of the society the literary 
members outnumbered those of the other class.56 Among 
the members of the Literary Class were Kames, Hume, 

53 Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, I, 6. 

54 Ibid., 10. 

55 Ibid., 8. 

56 [James David] Forbes, Opening Address, 1862; in Proceedings 
of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, V, 10 (1866). 


THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 77 


Tytler, Beattie, Reid, Burke, and Adam Smith.5? There 
seems to have been a deliberate intention on the part of the 
society to ‘‘feature’’ the literary department; for no 
society had as yet appropriated literature as its field of 
scholarship. But the plans of the organizers met with rela- 
tively little success. The papers of the Literary Class 
printed in the first volume of the society’s Transactions 
comprise articles on history, political science, and Greek 
philology, eight in all. The literary articles in the second 
volume were seven in number, covering in all but one title 
subjects from comparative philology, and Greek, Latin, 
German, and English literature. In the third and fourth 
volumes, however, which represented the activities of the 
society from 1789 to 1797, there were in the literary class 
three and two papers respectively, only one of the five 
touching the field of literature in our modern sense. The 
literary papers were no longer printed under a separate 
caption in the volumes following the fourth, although 
philological papers were printed at the rate of one a volume 
from the fifth to the tenth volume, ending in 1830. The 
Literary Class of the society continued a nominal existence 
for some years after its papers ceased to be separately 
printed; but towards the end of the eighteenth century its 
meetings became very infrequent, the time formerly devoted 
to them soon being given over more and more to scientific 
communications. The minute-book of the Literary Class 
closed in the year 1808.5 From time to time, however, 
literary papers were read at the regular meetings of the 
society, but without being separated from the scientific 
papers. The election of Sir Walter Scott to the presidency 
in 1820 must be regarded as an effort to revive the literary 
communications in the society; but Scott, although he con- 
scientiously presided at the meetings, contributed no 


87 Ibid., 11. 
58 Ibid., 12. 


78 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


papers, and evidently was unable to rescusitate the flag- 
ging interests of the literary members. The Literary Class 
of the society was therefore finally abolished in 1827.°° 
Principal Forbes has taken pains to point out that the 
failure of what is for us the more important division of the: 
society was not due to the encroachments of scientific 
research, but to the cessation of the literary communica- 
tions. Whether this is to be explained by indifference on 
the part of the members of the Literary Class, or by their 
recognition that the scientific studies of the day provided 
a better ground for investigation than philology in its 
then existing state, in any event it is to be noted that 
an experiment in a new field which was at least temporarily 
successful met its final failure in a period when literary 
societies generally in England, and even in Scotland, were 
beginning to achieve their distinguished successes. 

Notwithstanding the eventual frustration of the literary 
plans of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, we must concede 
it the honor of having been the first publishing society of 
Great Britain to have furthered consistently over a period 
of some years an interest in philological studies. -That this 
interest was restricted in the main to classical philology 
may be explained in part by the fact that the literary 
members were recruited largely from the faculty of Edin- 
burgh University, and partly by the fact that nothing like 
a broad interest in the antiquity of English and Scottish 
literature was possible to any but collectors or special stu- 
dents of literature before the period of general republica- 
tion of literary materials which began with the opening of 
the nineteenth century. 

In 1780, two years before it was proposed that the Edin- 
burgh Philosophical Society should be absorbed into the 
Royal Society of Edinburgh, David Steuart Erskine, Earl 


59 Ibid., 12. 


THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 79 


of Buchan, had taken steps toward the formation of an 
antiquarian society in the same city.®°° This society was 
established at the end of the year as the Society of the 
Antiquaries of Scotland.*t When the organization peti- 
tioned two years later for a royal charter, it encountered 
the opposition of the University and of the Curators of the 
Advocates’ Library.** The objection of the University is 
probably to be explained by the fact that at this very 
moment the Philosophical Society, which represented 
generally the Faculty of the University, had petitioned 
the Lord Advocate to be included in the projected Royal 
Society of Edinburgh,® although the nominal ground of 
complaint was that there was not room in Scotland for 
two societies of this kind. Events seem to prove that this 
widespread objection to the foundation of another aca- 
demic body in the northern capital was well grounded; for 
the history of the Scottish Antiquaries during the last 
decade of the eighteenth century and the first twenty years 
of the nineteenth was one of painful indolence and constant 
pecuniary embarrassment. Indeed, the society was twice 
within this period on the border of dissolution.** The 
original members of the Antiquaries of Scotland included, 
in addition to the Earl of Buchan, William Smellie, Kames, 

60 For correspondence with George Paton relative to the establish- 
ment of this society see Letters from Thomas Percy and Others to 
George Paton, 1830, 169-74. 

61 William Smellie, An historical Account of the Society of the Anti- 
quaries of Scotland, in Transactions of the Society of the Antiquaries 
of Scotland, I, iii-xxxiii, 1792. 

62 Robert Kerr, Memoirs of William Smellie, 1811; II, 35-44. 

63 Tbid., 37. 

64 Samuel Hibbert and David Laing, Account of the progress of 
the Society of the Antiquaries of Scotland, from 1784 to 1830; in 
Archaeologia Scotica, III, app., v-xxxi, 1831; and David Laing, 


Anniversary address on the state of the Society of Antiquaries of 
Scotland, from 1831 to 1860; in Archaeologia Scotica, V, 1-36, 1890. 


80 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


Tytler, Blair, Boswell, and George Paton. The charter of 
the society®> does not name literature as one of the prov- 
inces of its activity, but it empowers the incorporated body 
to collect books and manuscripts. The intense patriotism 
of the Scotsmen of this period, however, made it inevitable 
that their language and literature should constitute at least 
an occasional subject for investigation or discussion. <Ac- 
cordingly we find among the early communications a biog- 
raphy of John Barclay, the author of Argenis, by Lord 
Hailes, Tytler’s dissertation on the life and writings of 
James I (subsequently published in his edition of James’s 
Poetical Works, 1783), a paper by Pinkerton on textual 
publications of Scots poetry, a bibliography of native 
authors by Donald Mackintosh, and numerous special 
papers on etymologies, Gaelic philology and literature, 
and especially the Ossian controversy, in which, naturally 
enough, most of the members of the society were inclined 
to the acceptance of Macpherson’s declarations.®® In the 
early nineteenth century the literary activities of the body 
gave way before archaeological investigations; and al- 
though James Chalmers, the Skenes, Donald Gregory, and 
most notably, David Laing, occasionally communicated 
items of real importance to students of literature, the 
Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, like the Royal Society 
of Edinburgh, in time came to restrict itself practically to 
the province of interest represented by its distinguished 
senior in London. 

Meanwhile, from the middle of the eighteenth century on, 
the important Scotch cities fostered a number of intellectual 
societies of great importance. Such societies were almost 

65 Transactions of the Society of the Antiquaries of Scotland, I, 
x-xli, 1792. 

66 List of communications read at the meetings of the Society of 


the Antiquaries of Scotland, MDCCLXXX-MDCCCXXX ; in Archae- 
ologia Scotica, III, app. 149-96, 1831. 


THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 81 


without exception restricted in numbers; and the very fact 
that their membership was not honorary removed from 
their proceedings the superfluous checks of formality and 
gratuitous reverence for personages. With more than one 
of these are associated the names of Principal Robertson, 
Adam Smith, Thomas Reid, and David Hume. The earliest 
was the Glasgow Literary Club, constituted probably before 
1750, and principally from among the scholars and the 
ministers of the city which gave the club its name.® The 
only members of more than local celebrity were Adam 
Smith, during the period of the club’s activity successively 
Professor of Logic and of Moral Philosophy at Glasgow, 
Hume, Reid, John Callander, and the Foulis brothers, 
whose press was then beginning to gain for the small city 
considerable note.** A local celebrity was Dr. James Moor, 
whose work in classical philology is probably still to be 
commended by classical students. Partly because of the 
dominance of professorial dignity in the body, and partly 
because of the quality of Scotch culture at the time, the 
communications to the club were largely classical and philo- 
sophical. Moor seems to have been the moving spirit of the 
society at the time of its greatest vitality; he contributed 
some of the first essays read before them, three of which, 
not specially relevant to our investigation, were published 
by the Foulises in 1759.°° Two other papers by Moor 
which possess for us a more immediate interest are recorded 
simply by title: these are, ‘‘Remarks on Dr. Warburton’s 
critical notes on Mr. Pope,’’ read in 1765, and ‘‘Some 
observations on the genius of English verse,’’ read in 


67 Wiliam James Duncan, Notices and Documents illustrative of 
the literary History of Glasgow, Maitland Club, 1831; 15-17, 131-5. 

68 Ibid., 132-4. 

69 James Moor, Essays read to a Literary Society at their weekly 
Meetings ... at Glasgow, 1759. 


7 


82 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


1769.7° Dr. Archibald Arthur, many years later the occu- 
pant for a single year of the chair of Moral Philosophy 
previously held by Adam Smith and Thomas Reid, was a 
frequent contributor to the club, largely on philological 
and aesthetic topics, and his interest in both subjects was 
apparently chiefly pedagogical. His addresses before the 
society, including a critique, Concerning Mr. Burke’s 
theory of beauty, were collected and published in 1830.” 
The contributions of the Foulis brothers were usually on 
questions in philosophical and theological casuistry. That 
Adam Smith’s communications to the society were at least 
in part relative to literary study may be inferred from the 
fact that especially during his early years he was an un- 
usually profound and alert student of letters.”* It is 
further recorded that he ‘‘read those essays on taste, com- 
position, and the history of philosophy, which he had pre- 
viously delivered while a lecturer on rhetoric at Edin- 
burgh’’;7? and judging from an allusion by Dugald 
Stewart, it is evident that he read before the society on 
one occasion something in the nature of a program of 
eriticism.7* From this brief review of the kind and quality 
of this single side of the club’s activities, it will be seen 
that it possessed a genuine importance in its field. Indeed, 
in view of the fact that the Philosophical Society of 
Edinburgh even after its reorganization in 1739” limited 

70 Notices and Documents, 131. 

71 Archibald Arthur, Discourses on theological and literary Sub- 
jects, 1803. 

72 Dugald Stewart, Account of the Life and Writings of Adam 
Smith; in Essays on philosophical Subjects by ... Adam Smith, 
1795; xiii—xiv, xvi. 

73 Notices and Documents, 16. Dugald Stewart (op. cit., Ixxxvii- 
lxxxvili) believes that these essays were among those which Smith de- 
stroyed immediately before his death. 


7400. Cit, 1Xxx. 
75 Ante, 74-5. 


THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 83 


its interests very largely to medical and physical science, 
it may very well be questioned whether the Glasgow 
Literary Club should not be considered as in actuality the 
first of our modern philological societies. It is certain in 
any event that although the society did not itself publish 
any of its deliberations, and hence should not be called a 
publishing society, it can not be said that any similar 
organization which preceded it was devoted so actively and 
continuously to extensive philological studies. 

While Adam Smith was still at Glasgow he appeared as 
one of the constituent members of the Select Society of 
Edinburgh, established in 1754. ‘‘This society,’’ says 
Dugald Stewart,** ‘‘subsisted in vigour for six or seven 
years, and produced debates, such as have not often been 
heard in modern assemblies ;—debates, where the dignity 
of the speakers was not lowered by the intrigues of policy, 
or the intemperance of faction; and where the most splen- 
did talents that have ever adorned this country were roused 
to their best exertions, by the liberal and ennobling dis- 
cussions of literature and philosophy.’’ Among the mem- 
bers of this body were Allan Ramsay, son of the poet, 
Robertson, Hume, Kames, and John Home, author of the 
tragedy Douglas, the production of which in 1757 created 
a turmoil among the Scottish clergy. The proceedings 
of this society were apparently more formal than those 
of the Literary Club at Glasgow; and this was probably 
due to the fact that the membership was quickly increased 
to more than one hundred and thirty.” There is some 
apparent significance in the observation that Hume, who 

76 Dugald Stewart, Account of the Life and Writings of William 
Robertson, 1801; 15-16. 

77 Ibid., 212. <A list of the members of the society is given in the 
appendix of Stewart’s Life of Robertson, 214-220. Henry Grey 
Graham (Scottish Men of Letters in the Eighteenth Century, 111) 
puts the membership at three hundred. 


84 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


was not usually indisposed to talk, and Smith, who had 
taken so prominent a part in the meetings of the Glasgow 
club, when at the meetings of the Select Society ‘‘never 
opened their lips.’’*® The only subjects of discussion 
barred by the rules of the organization were ‘‘such as 
regard revealed religion, or which might give occasion to 
vent any principles of Jacobitism.’’’® The conduct of the 
meetings was regulated by strict rules of debate; indeed, 
the prime object of the gathering, to improve the members 
in public speaking, in all probability made the proceedings 
anything but spontaneous. Of a list of typical subjects 
discussed at the meetings a few bear upon very general 
literary topics; but the majority are of a political or an 
economic nature.*® The society endeavored also to en- 
courage an outside interest in investigative literary work, 
as in 1756 it offered medals for ‘‘the best history of the 
Roman, and afterwards of the Saxon conquests and settle- 
ments ...in Cumberland and Northumberland,’’ for 
‘‘the best account of the rise and progress of commerce, 
arts, and manufactures, in North Britain,’’ and for ‘‘the 
most reasonable scheme for maintaining and employing the 
poor.’’** An incidental venture of some of the members 
was a periodical book review, only two numbers of which 
appeared in 1755 and 1756. The title of this publication is 
oddly but properly enough the Edinburgh Review; but it 
is of course not to be confused with the periodical founded 
by Sydney Smith.®? A fact of more than ordinary interest 

78 Ibid., 213. 

79 John Lord Campbell, The Lives of the Lord Chancellors of Eng- 
land, VI, 31 (1847). 

80 Ibid., 32-3. 

81 Scots Magazine, XIX, 49, 1757. 

82 An entry in the British Museum Catalogue of Printed Books 
(Periodical Publications, 1899, 322) reads: ‘‘The Edinburgh Maga- 
zine and Review. By a Society of Gentlemen [Adam Smith, David 
Hume, and others], 5 vol., Edinburgh [1773-] 76.’’ This is a clear 


THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 85 


in the history of the Select Society is that through the good 
services of John Home the first transcripts of Macpherson’s 
Ossian were placed before the society in 1759. Blair, by 
virtue of his membership, became interested in the young 
tutor and his alleged translations; and it was principally 
at Blair’s instance that in the following year the Frag- 
ments of Ancient Poetry were published.** The demise of 
the Select Society was brought about by a curious plan ‘‘to 
speak as well as to write the English language,’’ in which 
the society, practically as a body, participated. Thomas 
Sheridan, father of the dramatist, and itinerant teacher 
of elocution, having descended upon Edinburgh in 1761, 
succeeded in inducing the society to undertake ‘‘the Her- 
culean task of annihilating the Scottish tongue, and sub- 
stituting the English language and pronunciation in its 
place.’’** This scheme became the social fad of the 
hour, and attracted many prominent residents in addi- 
tion to the members of the Select Society. These 
enthusiasts proceeded to the organization of ‘‘The Society 
for promoting the Reading and Speaking of the Eng- 
lish Language in Scotland’’; but in spite of the emi- 
nence of many of the projectors, the plan met with a 
general ridicule which brought it to an ignominious end; 
and with the decay of the fad, the Select Society itself 
ceased to be.®® One effect of enduring importance, how- 
ever, is assigned to this ‘‘singular epidemic’’: the estab- 
instance of confusion, for the Select Society’s Edinburgh Review was 
at this period defunct, and the Edinburgh Magazine and Review of 
1773-6 was actually established and conducted by Gilbert Stuart and 
William Smellie (Dictionary of National Biography, LII, 401, LV, 
83). 

‘ Bailey Saunders, Life and Letters of James Macpherson, 1894, 
72-8. 

84 Thomas Edward Ritchie, Life and Writings of David Hume, 


1807, 93. 
85 Ibid., 93-102. 


9 


86 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


lishment of the Regius Professorship of Rhetoric and Belles 
Lettres, the first incumbent of which was Dr. Hugh Blair.*® 

The Aberdeen Philosophical Society, which met first in 
1758 and continued in existence as late as 1773, has been 
estimated to have had an unusually active influence upon 
Seottish philosophy in these years. One of the founders 
was Dr. Thomas Reid, who succeeded Adam Smith as Pro- 
fessor of Moral Philosophy at Glasgow.’? The rules of this 
society provided that ‘‘the subjects of the discourses and 
questions shall be philosophical; all grammatical, historical, 
and philological discussions being conceived to be foreign 
to the design of this society.’’’* But notwithstanding this 
embargo, a small number of the subjects discussed were in 
the nature of aesthetical controversies upon general, and 
usually very abstruse literary questions.°® The society can 
therefore be granted an incidental, but only an incidental, 
importance for our purpose. 

Some Scottish clubs whose chief object is admitted to 
have been conviviality may have possessed a casual relation 
to scholarly productivity because of the literary nature of 
their free deliberations. The most conspicuous of these 
were the Anderston Club, which was attended by most of 
the members of the Glasgow Literary Club, and which is 
said to have held discussions of some little literary dignity,°° 
the Hodge Podge Club, of the same place and period, and 
the Poker Club, of Edinburgh. The Poker Club was evi- 

86 Ibid., 102. 

87 James McCosh, The Scottish Philosophy from Hutcheson to 
Hamilton, 1875; 227-9, 467-73. Dugald Stewart, Life and Writings 
of Thomas Reid, Edinburgh, 1803, 25-6. 

88 Ibid., 228. Dr. McCosh comments, ‘‘It is evident that they had 
no idea of the importance of philology.’’ 

89 A list of the subjects of discussion is given in an appendix to 
Dr. McCosh’s work, 467-73. 


90 John Strang, Glasgow and its Clubs, Glasgow, 1856, 23-32. 
91 [bid., 45-7. 


THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 87 


dently conducted as an adjunct to the Select Society, much 
as the Anderston Club seems to have been for its more dis- 
tinguished contemporary.® It has been said that the 
Poker Club actually developed into a literary club; but 
this claim substitutes an accident for an essential feature. 
Hume’s biographer tells us, ‘‘It met on Tuesdays and 
Fridays during four or five years, at a house, called the 
Diversorium, in the vicinity of the Netherbow of Edin- 
burgh; and although it is here dignified with the character 
of a literary society, the reader will not, we hope, conceive 
an unfavourable opinion of it, when he learns, that the 
sole object of the members was conviviality.’’®* After all, 
it must be said that social clubs of this type, whose member- 
ship was made up even in large part of men of literary dis- 
tinction, possess no special importance in the history of 
intellectual movements, for when the social objects of the 
gathering become subservient to the intellectual objects, as 
they may be said to have become in Johnson’s literary club, 
the club becomes by that fact an intellectual, and no longer 
a social organization. The historical identity of the two 
types seems to indicate that this distinction is not arbi- 
trary or useless. 

On the inevitable border-line, however, stands the well- 
known club whose central figure was the most impressive 
personality in eighteenth century literature. To assert 
that the Literary Club was in any sense a learned society 
would be, of course, to claim for it a kind of importance 
which it certainly did not possess, and the imputation of 
which its members, save a possible two or three, would 
have resented emphatically. But if any of the eighteenth 
century clubs whose purposes were primarily and assert- 
ively social can be said to have exerted a positive influence 
upon literary scholarship (not upon literary production), 


92 Tytler, Memoirs of Kames, I, 253-4. 
93 Ritchie, op. cit., 83. 


88 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


Johnson’s club must unquestionably be placed first among 
them. It would be idle to assume that Johnson’s own per- 
sonality or literary tastes had very much to do with the 
revival of interest in literary antiquity, although, to be 
sure, he is known to have given Percy, as a fellow-member 
of the club, the advantage of some probably perfunctory 
advice previous to the publication of the Reliques of An- 
cient English Poetry.6* On the contrary, Johnson’s atti- 
tude toward medieval popular literature was wholly scorn- 
ful. He parodied the simplicity of ballad poetry,®®> and 
ridiculed the collection of black letter books: and literary 
rarities as a characteristic silliness of the antiquarian 
enthusiast.°° The scholarly importance of the Literary 


94 Boswell’s Life of Johnson, edited by George Birkbeck Hill, 1887, 
III, 276-7. Reliques of Ancient English Poetry, edited by Henry B. 
Wheatley, 1886, I, 14. 

95 Boswell’s Life of Johnson, II, 136 n. 

96 In the Rambler, No. 177. Vivaculus, bored by his solitary 
lucubrations, entreats one of his ‘‘academical acquaintances ’’ to in- 
troduce him to ‘‘some of the little societies of literature which are 
formed in taverns and coffee-houses.’’ ‘‘The eldest and most vener- 
able of this society was Hirsutus, who, after the first civilities of my 
reception, found means to introduce the mention of his favourite 
studies. He informed me that... he had very carefully amassed all 
the English books that were printed in the black character. ... He 
had long since completed his Caxton, had three sheets of Treveris 
unknown to the antiquaries, and wanted to a perfect Pynson but two 
volumes, of which one was promised him as a legacy by its present 
possessor, and the other he was resolved to buy, at whatever price, 
when Quisquilius’s library should be sold. MHirsutus had no other 
reason for the valuing or slighting a book, than that it was printed 
in the Roman or the Gothic letter, nor any ideas but such as his 
favourite volumes had supplied; when he was serious he expatiated 
on the narratives of ‘Johan de Trevisa,’ and when he was merry, 
regaled us with a quotation from the ‘Shippe of Foles.’ ... Can- 
tilenus turned all his thoughts upon old ballads, for he considered 
them as the genuine records of the national taste. He offered to show 
me a copy of ‘The Children in the Wood,’ which he firmly believed 
to be of the first edition, and, by the help of which the text might be 


THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 89 


Club lies in its inclusion of a group of accomplished stu- 
dents whose interests in literary antiquity shamed John- 
son’s prejudice and belied Warburton’s fatuous dictum 
that ‘‘antiquarianism is to true letters what specious 
funguses are to the oak.’’®** Among these members of the 
Club were of course Garrick, who was an industrious ballad 
collector,®*® Perey, Thomas and Joseph Warton, the former 
the writer of the first distinguished history of English 
poetry, Steevens and Malone, giants in the history of 
Shaksperean criticism and biography, and later Dr. 
Farmer, acknowledged as one of the greatest scholarly 
figures of the day, although not a frequent combatant in 
the public lists of criticism of the time.®*® We know that 
in the cases of Malone, Perey, and the Wartons, the friend- 


freed from several corruptions, if this age of barbarity had any 
claim to such favours from him.’’ Johnson’s judgment of the oc- 
cupations and characters of antiquaries may be gathered from another 
paragraph: ‘‘ Every one of these virtuosos looked on all his associates 
as wretches of depraved taste and narrow notions. Their conversa- 
tion was, therefore, fretful and waspish, their behaviour brutal, their 
merriment bluntly sarcastick, and their seriousness gloomy and sus- 
picious. They were totally ignorant of all that passes, or has lately 
passed, in the world; unable to discuss any question of religious, 
political or military knowledge; equally strangers to science and 
politer learning, and without any wish to improve their minds, or any 
other pleasure than that of displaying rarities, of which they would 
not suffer others to make the proper use’’ (The Works of Samuel 
Johnson, Oxford, 1825, III, 329-33). In a letter to Boswell relative 
to a previous disagreement with Percy, Johnson says: ‘‘Percy’s at- 
tention to poetry has given grace and splendour to his studies of 
antiquity. A mere antiquarian is a rugged being’’ (Boswell’s Life 
of Johnson, III, 278). 

97 Bishop Percy’s Folio Manuscript, edited by John W. Hales and 
Frederick J. Furnivall, 1867; I, xxxviii—ix. 

98 Percy’s Reliques, edited by Henry B. Wheatley, I, 14. 

99 The names of all but Farmer are given in Boswell’s list of 1792 
(Boswell’s Life of Johnson, I, 477-9); Farmer was admitted to the 
Club in 1795 (Nichols, Literary Anecdotes, II, 639). 


=n 


90 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


ships established in the Club were perpetuated in a valua- 
ble correspondence, largely upon literary questions ;*°° and 
we may safely assume from the mere presence of so impos- 
ing a group of scholars in the Club that its meetings, par- 
ticularly in the later years, provided frequent occasion for 
discussion of the topics of uppermost interest to them. 
With the close of the century, however, the Literary Club 
began to sink into an aristocratic decadence, an offence to 
the memory of its greatest member, and of course an abso- 
lute check upon essentially literary activities, from any 
point of view whatsoever.’ 

Apparently most of these pioneers were also members of 
Issac Reed’s Unincreasable Club, a ‘‘dining club,’’ as 
Nichols calls it, with some scholarly pretensions;’°? and 
Farmer, with Reynolds and Boswell, was a member of the 
EKumélian Club, founded by Dr. John Ash;?° but there can 
be little doubt that in both of these clubs, as with most 
contemporary organizations, serious questions were not 
permitted to intrude upon conviviality. 

Much more important is the fact that Perey, Thomas 
Warton, Malone, Farmer, Steevens, Tyrwhitt, and Reed 
were all members of the Society of Antiquaries during 
the last quarter of this century ;?°* and it is of incidental 
interest that Ritson and Samuel Ireland were both black- 


100 Sir James Prior, Life of Edmond Malone, 1850, 117-9, 122-3, 
282, 284-5, 321-2. 

101 John Timbs, Club Life of London, 1866; I, 213-5. 

102 [John Nichols], Biographical Memoirs of the late Isaac Reed, 
Esq.; Gentleman’s Magazine, UXXVII, 80-2, 1807. 

103 Nichols’s Literary Anecdotes, II, 638; and William Munk, Roll 
of the Royal College of Physicians of London, 1878, II, 379. 

104 Richard Gough, List of Members of the Society of Antiquaries, 
1798. Tyrwhitt’s name is not given in Gough’s List; but he is said 
by Nichols (Literary Anecdotes, III, 147), to have been a member 
of the society. 


THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 91 


balled by the Society in 1789.1° The Antiquaries had at 
this time awakened to a more active existence than before 
the middle of the century; and between 1770 and 1800 
their principal communications were collected in the first 
thirteen volumes of Archaeologia. None of the papers 
delivered during this period were from members of our 
group, however, if we except a single indirect communica- 
tion by letter from Bishop Perey upon an archaeological 
topie.t°® So evidently the membership of these students of 
literature was due to their interest in antiquities in the 
more general sense; indeed, Perey, Warton, Tyrwhitt and 
Malone were antiquarians of the traditional stamp, as well 
as literary scholars. But the publications of the Society of 
Antiquaries for this period are not without interest to the 
student of literature. During these thirty years there 
were published in Archaeologia a number of articles of 
interest upon English, French, Gaelic and Cornish philol- 
ogy, and a few records of Anglo-Saxon inscriptions. Most 
of these papers, however, exhibit a curious rather than a 
scholarly interest in such studies. The most important of 
these articles was a series of lengthy dissertations by 
William Drake, partly controversial in their nature, upon 
the history of the English language; these demonstrate 
with some effectiveness the relation of the Teutonic linguis- 
tie stock to the modern tongue.’*? Other items of some 
importance were Samuel Pegge’s amicable Observations on 
Dr. Percy’s account of minstrels among the Saxons,'°® and 
translations of four really learned papers communicated 
between 1794 and 1797 by the Abbé de la Rue upon Wace, 

105 Edward William Brabrook, On the Fellows of the Society of 
Antiquaries of London who have held the Office of Director; Archae- 
ologia, LXII, 70 (1910). 

106 Archaeologia, VII, 158-9, 1785. 

107 Archaeologia, V, 306-17, 379-89, IX, 332-61. 

108 [bid., II, 100-6, 1773. 


92 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


Marie de France, and the Anglo-Norman poets of the 
twelfth and thirteenth centuries.‘ It must be admitted, 
therefore, that the Society of Antiquaries accomplished 
during this period something of genuine importance in this 
province, even though the rarity of communications on 
literary subjects, and the apparent apathy among the noted 
literary scholars in the society to the exhibition of their 
special interests here, forbids our assuming that the society 
as a whole possessed more than a casual and half-indulgent 
approval of literary investigation as part of their learned 
business. 

Two other permanent societies dating from the late 
eighteenth century, one in Manchester, and one in Dublin, 
displayed in the first years of their existence a disposition 
to foster literary scholarship. Their activity was neither 
more nor less effective than that of their older and more 
important contemporaries. The first of these, the Literary 
and Philosophical Society of Manchester, had its begin- 
nings, as did almost all of the learned societies established 
before the nineteenth century, in a club of ‘‘inhabitants 
of the town, who were inspired with a taste for Literature 
and Philosophy.’’4#° This society, founded in 1781, was 
the first so-called provincial publishing society in Eng- 
land; for the powerful learned societies in London and 
Edinburgh were then, and have always continued to be, 
really national in their influence. The Manchester society 
was by its membership and environment destined to de- 
velop naturally into a scientific society; indeed its early 
leaning to scientific study may be seen in its first catalogue 
of honorary members, which included Erasmus Darwin 
and Priestley, residents of Manchester, and Delaval, 

109 Ibid., XII, 50-79, 297-326, XIII, 36-67, 230-50. 

110 Memoirs of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Man- 


chester, I, vii, 1785. R. Angus Smith, A Centenary of Science in 
Manchester, 1883, 22-4. 


THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 93 


Franklin, Lavoisier, Volta, and Wedgewood.** Despite 
this rather unpromising outlook for literary study, a few 
papers of this nature appear in the first series of the 
Society’s Memoirs; the only two published before 1800, 
however, were papers by a local physician, Dr. John Fer- 
rier, on Massinger and Sterne."?* With the opening of the 
next century this society became more strictly scientific, 
probably in part because of the expanding importance of 
the city as an industrial centre. In time, therefore, literary 
communications were dropped entirely from the society’s 
meetings. 

The Royal Irish Academy, which possesses a scope and 
importance comparable to that of the metropolitan socie- 
ties in England and Scotland, was organized in 1782, and 
chartered in 1785, the names of Percy and Malone appear- 
ing on the list of constituent members.14*? The Academy 
seems to trace its descent more or less directly from a 
Physico-Historical Society, founded in 1740, and an anti- 
quarian group known as the Dublin Society which flour- 
ished from 1772 to 1774. The immediate origin of the 
society, however, was apparently in the kind of essay club 
which was the first form of early societies generally.1*+ 
The Royal Irish Academy was chartered for inquiry in 
science, polite literature, and antiquities; and the publica- 
tions of the Academy, therefore, were divided under these 
heads.1> The literary section of the Transactions, how- 

111 Memoirs of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Man- 
chester, I, xviii—xix. 

112 [bid., III, 123-58, and IV, 45-85. Notes on the quality of 
these two articles are 40nd in Smith’s Centenary of Science in 
Manchester, 177-9. 

113 Charter and Statutes of the Royal Irish Academy, Dublin, 
1786, 4. 

114 Robert Burrowes, Preface to Transactions of the Royal Irish 
Academy, I, xiii-xv, 1787. 

115 Charter and Statutes, 5. 


94 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


ever, included at first papers on a variety of subjects. 
Those of the more strictly literary type published before 
1800 comprise a number of essays in aesthetic criticism of 
the drama, and academic disquisitions upon classical litera- 
ture. It is simply classing the Academy’s publications 
with the bulk of similar productions of the time to say 
that the critical contributions to the literary section in 
these years possess very little value to the scholar of the 
present. In the nineteenth century the Academy aban- 
doned English literature and fittingly turned its atten- 
tion to the remains of Irish literature; and in this field it 
has accomplished much of the very highest scholarly 
importance. 

Probably the most extensive and the most solid contribu- 
tion on the part of any society of this period to a scholar- 
ship that had now beyond doubt become assured of its 
strength was the investigation conducted by the Highland 
Society of Scotland—an organization for wholly miscel- 
laneous purposes—into the authenticity of the Ossian 
Poems. After Dr. Johnson’s fulmination against Mac- 
pherson, interest in the question had subsided, although the 
adherents to the belief that the poems were wholly or 
largely genuine had by no means abandoned their convic- 
tions. The investigations of the committee of the High- 
land Society were begun in 1797. Eight years elapsed 
before the publication of their report,1!® which represented 
an extended inquiry into the remains of Gaelic poetry 
generally, and considerable research in the special ques- 
tions connected with Macpherson’s publication. The con- 
clusions of the committee” recited that Macpherson’s so- 
called translations are probably not to be taken as literal 

116 Henry Mackenzie, Report of the Committee of the Highland 
Society of Scotland, appointed to inquire into the Nature and Authen- 


ticity of the poems of Ossian, Edinburgh, 1805. 
117 Tbid., 151-5. 


THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 95 


renderings of actual ancient remains, although they may 
have been derived in part from the disjecta membra of old 
Gaelic poetry. With regard to Macpherson’s use of his 
materials the committee was ‘‘inclined to believe that he 
was in use to supply chasms, and to give connection, by 
inserting passages which he did not find, and to add what 
he conceived to be dignity and delicacy to the original 
composition, by striking out passages, by softening inci- 
dents, by refining the language, in short by changing what 
he considered as too simple or too rude for a modern ear, 
and elevating what in his opinion was below the standard 
of good poetry.’’?8 Beyond these conclusions a century 
of occasional research in the subject has scarcely carried us. 

The action of the Highland Society in settling, as far as 
settlement was possible, a literary dispute so vexed, and at 
the same time so closely indicative of the state of literary 
scholarship at this time, brings us to a consideration of 
the special conditions and problems with which scholar- 
ship found itself dealing during the last forty years of 
the seventeenth century. 

The gradual growth of a general appreciation of old 
literature had been in progress since the early years of the 
century.17® The development of this appreciation, which 
may be taken as one of the most significant marks of the 
romantic reaction, had been very slow, however, except 
possibly in Seotland, where a literary consciousness arose 
which found itself possessed of no literary reminiscence 
approaching in richness that of England’s yesterday, but 
which resolved to make much of what it did possess—an 

118 [bid., 152. 

119 See Sir Walter Scott’s Introductory remarks on popular poetry, 
in his Minstrelsy of the Scottish Border, edited by T. F. Henderson, 
I, 1-54, 1902; also John W. Hales’s The revival of ballad poetry in 


the eighteenth century; in Bishop Percy’s Folio Manuscript, edited 
by John W. Hales and Frederick J. Furnivall, II, v-xxxi, 1867. 


96 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


ancient literature of rugged vitality and naturalness, but 
largely wanting in delicacy and polish. The spread of 
this new literary taste in England was furthered remark- 
ably during the decade following 1760, partly through the 
rapid weakening of the classical tradition, but more par- 
ticularly through the publication of three collections of 
ostensibly ancient poetry, Macpherson’s Ossian in 1760, 
Percy’s Reliques of Ancient English Poetry in 1765, and 
Chatterton’s Rowley Poems from 1764 to 1770. What 
seemed to create the extraordinary vogue of these collec- 
tions, where the publication of actual poetical remains up 
to this time had passed without enthusiasm, was the adap- 
tation of all three to a poetical taste which, however much 
it might be attracted by vigor and simplicity, was repelled 
by a lack of refinement and finish. Far from being actual 
monuments of antiquity, the Ossian poems were, if not 
really forged, at least highly modernized; Percy’s Reliques 
were generously and systematically refined; and the Rowley 
Poems were soon recognized as fabrications. 

The result was that no sooner had a body of assumedly 
ancient poetry captured the liking of the reading public 
than scholars began to demonstrate that it was really not 
ancient poetry at all; for if it were not actually modern in 
composition, its adaptation to popular taste had been at 
the expense of some of its most characteristic virtues. 
Macpherson met a very torrent of criticism in England 
generally; Percy suffered at the violent hands of Ritson 
and his fellows, and Chatterton was shortly exposed by 
Gray, Warton, and Tyrwhitt.12° The very prevalence of 

120 Prof. Skeat (The Poetical Works of Thomas Chatterton, with 
an Essay on the Rowley Poems by Walter W. Skeat, Il, ix) says: 
“‘Tt is not too much to say that Tyrwhitt is the only writer among 
those that have hitherto handled the subject who had a real critical 


knowledge of the language of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, 
and who, in fact, had on that account a real claim to be heard.’’ 


THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 97 


uncritical emendation or downright dishonesty on the part 
of editors and publishers, magnified later by the inventions 
of Pinkerton and the spectacular Shakspere forgeries of 
Ireland, established at once the supreme importance of a 
well grounded critical scholarship in dealing with old 
literary materials. The generation of students who built 
up the new critical tradition found it no longer necessary, 
therefore, to adopt an apologetic manner before the reading 
public, but found instead a public which had gradually 
but certainly formed its taste in a school of new literary 
doctrines. The literary scholars of the age had something 
that their predecessors had never possessed—not merely a 
field to work in, but a general public interest to appeal to. 
The way was prepared, therefore, for a degree of pro- 
ductive activity which could have met with no response 
fifty years earlier. The eighteenth century closed when 
the claims of literary scholarship no longer needed asser- 
tion, and the new century opened upon an entirely new 
prospect. 

Meanwhile the usefulness of the learned society had ~ 
become entirely established in diverse fields of intellectual 
occupation; and although there was not yet in existence a 
society devoted exclusively or even largely to the study of 
English literature, a number of thriving organizations had 
exhibited a more or less stable interest in the subject. 


(0/6) 


CHAPTER V 


NINETEENTH CENTURY BOOK CLUBS AND GENERAL 
PUBLISHING SOCIETIES 


Hitherto the occasional activity of societies in the field 
of literary study had been confined to ineffectual appre- 
cilative criticism and more or less valuable attempts at 
literary history. To be sure, the reprinting of old litera- 
ture was going on with increasing rapidity, and was calling 
forth from time to time a kind of critical response even on 
the part of the learned societies themselves. But with the 
bulk of the important literature of the Anglo-Saxon and 
the middle English periods still unavailable, and with the 
societies engaged in no effort to continue or to systematize 
the reproduction of the actual materials for literary study, 
_ it is very much to be questioned whether their importance 
in this field would have expanded commensurately with the 
expansion of literary scholarship unless an outside force 
had placed the club function in a new light. This force was 
the wave of book-collecting enthusiasm which was one of 
the indirect results of the revival of interest in things 
medieval. 

This wave of bibliomania was at its height during the 
first few years of the nineteenth century. Buyers of books 
had come to see that there were fewer Caxtons than there 
were collectors desirous of possessing them, and that Shaks- 
pere quartos were becoming so rare that a mere scholar 
could no longer afford to stack his shelves with them, as 
Malone had done in the previous century. The famous 
collection of the Duke of Roxburghe, which was sold at 
auction in 1812, brought in £23,000, although Dibdin esti- 
mated its cost to have been not over a fourth of that 

98 


NINETEENTH CENTURY BOOK CLUBS 99 


amount.* On the other hand, the collection of Richard 
Heber, which was gathered during these early years, and 
which Dibdin estimated to have cost between £100,000 and 
£150,000,? was sold between 1834 and 1836 for a total of 
only £67,000. 

While the growth of preposterously artificial values for 
rare books could not be regarded as encouraging directly an 
interest in the contents of these books, such an enthusiasm 
could scareely fail to awaken the interest of the public, 
already captivated by the charms of romantic literature, to 
a knowledge of the existence of the manuscript and printed 
materials of an older literature of unimagined extent 
and value. 

Bibliomania had, then, as all collecting hobbies must 
have, an appreciable effect upon popular sentiment; but 
having prepared the field for the great projects of publish- 
ing societies throughout the entire nineteenth century, it 
possesses for us a more direct importance. Indeed, it is 
not too much to say that to the bibliophiles alone must be 
given credit for having established the first generally suc- 
cessful scheme for the systematic publication of original 
documents; and the example which they set in the domain 
of literary study was followed in the publication first of 
historical and biographical materials and local records, and 
later of the materials for the history of the useful sciences, 
typography, architecture, music, ecclesiology, and a score 
of special studies. The effect of their work, in fact, was 
not limited to the societies which sprang up about them, 
but it is also to be clearly seen in the great government 
undertakings, such as the Rolls Series, and in a host of 
private projects organized upon the same plan, illustrated, 
for example, in the publications of Carew Hazlitt and 
Dr. Grosart. 

1Thomas Frognall Dibdin, Reminiscences of a literary life, 1836, 


I, 366-7. 
2 Ibid. 


100 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


The general importance of all of these early book clubs, 
however, was greatly restricted by the conditions of their 
organization. They were without exception exclusive in 
their membership, and they limited the issues of their 
publications in many cases to the exact numbers upon their 
rolls. In no instance were club publications very far in 
excess of the actual number of members to be accommo- 
dated, for it was understood that the book clubs were not 
attempting to supply books for the public. This policy met 
with much unfavorable comment generally, some of it 
voiced in the periodicals of the day. The Roxburghe 
Club, pioneer of these organizations, was the greatest 
source of offence in this respect; of the publications pre- 
sented to the club during the first fifteen years of its 
existence, almost all were limited to between thirty and 
forty copies, while the membership during this period was 
seldom much over thirty. Even the Roxburghe Club, 
however, displayed a slightly more considerate spirit when 
it later resolved to issue copies of its publications to the 
most important British libraries, and increased consider- 
ably the number of copies—which have never in any event 
exceeded one hundred—issued at the direction of the club 
itself, and not presented to it by incoming members. 

The story of the founding and early existence of the 
Roxburghe Club is told by Dibdin, with what he himself 
might have called ‘‘truly bibliomaniacal enthusiasm,’’ in his 

3See the Gentleman’s Magazine for 1813, 211-12, 338-41, 544, 
The writer of the first protest says: ‘‘Selfishness must be the most 
appropriate term whereby to designate the proceedings of a body of 
men, who have determined annually to print or reprint some valu- 
able or scarce work, but to confine the number of copies to be printed 
to the number of their club, ... That they have a right, or, in other 
words, that it is lawful for them to do so, cannot be disputed; but 
it is doubtless selfish, and by no means becoming men who have 


any pretensions to literature; and is so far from tending to diffuse 
knowledge, that it can serve only to confine and repress it’? (211-12). 


NINETEENTH CENTURY BOOK CLUBS 101 


Bibliographical Decameron and his Reminiscences.* A less 
temperate account, but one which does superb justice to 
the gustatory side of the club’s gatherings, is found in the 
annals which Joseph Haslewood set down for his personal 
delectation, but which were purchased at the sale of his 
library after his death and published with ungenerous 
comment upon the personality of the writer in the London 
Athenaeum during January, 1834.5 Haslewood’s reminis- 
ceneces are too slight and too personal to supply us with 
anything more than suggestions of the society’s history; 
but from Dibdin’s narrative, we may by scanning many 
solid pages of meaningless literary gossip and irrelevant 
foot-notes, interspersed generously with shrill Italic and 
thundering ROMAN, gather the following definite facts. 
On the night of the seventeenth of June, 1812, following 
the afternoon on which at the sale of the Duke of Rox- 
burghe’s books the ephemerally famous Valdarfer Boccaccio 
was knocked down to the Marquis of Blandford for up- 
wards of two thousand pounds,® eighteen properly self- 
styled bibliomaniacs met at the St. Albans Tavern to discuss 
what was to that time the most celebrated event recorded in 
the history of bookhunting.* Dibdin himself claimed the 
honor of having fathered the plan, although his fellow- 
clubman, George Isted, was apparently inclined to dispute 
with him this title to fame. Earl Spencer, the unsuccess- 
ful competitor in the bidding for the Boccaccio, presided 
at this festive meeting, and continued as president of the 
elub which grew from it until his death in 1834. The first 

4Thomas Frognall Dibdin, The Bibliographical Decameron, 1817, 
ITI, 69-75. Reminiscences of a Literary Life, 1836, I, 367-470. 

5 These articles were collected and republished, with some apology 
for Haslewood, and some miscellaneous Roxburghiana, in Roxburghe 
Revels and other relative Papers, 1837. 

6 See Dibdin’s Bibliographical Decameron, III, 48-69. 

7 Ibid., 69. 

8 Ibid., 71. 


102 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


meeting was attended by eighteen bibliophiles; within its 
first two years, however, the number of members of the 
Roxburghe Club was increased to thirty-one. The club 
prided itself upon exclusiveness, but an exclusiveness 
which belonged to the nature of its hobby, rather than to 
aristocratic preferences. In fact the organization consisted 
of two pretty distinct classes of members, between whom 
there was without question a very real social gulf; and it 
was, in fact, this social mixture in the early membership 
which later laid the club open to the rather unprincipled 
attack of the Athenaeum. The club, then, was composed of 
social lions and gentlemen of wealth on the one hand, such 
as Spencer and Gower, and on the other hand, of humbler 
bibliophiles, some of whom actually lived largely by the 
commissions of their wealthier associates. The most con- 
spicuous of the latter class were Haslewood, the protegé 
of Sir Egerton Brydges, and Dibdin himself, who had 
executed at the Roxburghe sale extensive purchases for 
Sir Mark Masterman Sykes.® At the first anniversary 
meeting of the club the Duke of Devonshire and the Mar- 
quis of Blandford were among the six new members 
admitted ;*° and at the third anniversary meeting James 
Boswell the younger became a member. 

The publishing plans of the Roxburghe Club were com- 
prised at first in a resolution for ‘‘each member, in turn, 
according to the order of his name in the alphabet, to fur- 
nish the Society with a reprint of some rare old tract, or 
composition—chiefly of poetry.’’4+ The letter of this rule, 

9 Reminiscences, I, 373. 

10 There is a point of casual interest in the fact that the social 
discrimination of the Marquis of Blandford, who, as the purchaser 
of the Valdarfer Boccaccio, might have been regarded as the most 
‘fout and out’’ bibliophile in the club, was so far from being carried 
away by bibliomania that at least during the fourteen years follow- 
ing his admission into the sacred circle he was present at none of the 


anniversary dinners of the Roxburghers. (Roxburghe Revels, 45.) 
11 Bibliographical Decameron, III, 72. 


NINETEENTH CENTURY BOOK CLUBS 1038 


and the tastes of the members, brought it about that the 
publications of the club came to include particularly an- 
cient literature, rather than history or antiquities. The 
first book presented was Surrey’s Certaine Bokes of Vir- 
giles Aenaeis, turned into English Meter, which was dis- 
tributed at the second anniversary, in 1814, by William 
Bolland. The gifts to the club were very numerous in the 
first few years of its existence, presumably because most of 
the members hastened to fulfill an obligation which was 
met at continually greater intervals when the membership 
was renewed merely by the filling of occasional vacancies. 
In any event, during the sixteen years from the foundation 
of the club to the issue of the first book at the joint ex- 
pense of the members, in 1828, the clubmen had been the 
recipients of forty-five volumes, three of which had been 
presented by non-members. These first publications were 
confined practically to distribution among the members. 
The issue of between thirty and fifty copies of such 
works was certainly not sufficient to be said to effect any 
very tangible service to English scholarship, especially 
when the majority of the club were probably collectors 
rather than readers, and when the reprints were as a rule 
brought out because of the rarity or singularity of the 
original, and not because of its intrinsic literary qualities. 
Indeed, it must probably be admitted that John Hill Bur- 
ton was substantially correct when he declared that the 
Roxburghe Club scheme was, from the standpoint of the 
members, one of purely personal advantage.? It was 
inevitable that under these conditions much of the output 
of the club should be relatively worthless, for most of the 
members were wanting in the ability, the wherewithal, or 
the inclination to produce really important literary works 
for gratuitous distribution. The publications of this 


12 John Hill Burton, The Book-Hunter, New York, 1883, 230-1. 


104 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


period were, therefore, frequently far from valuable, and 
often lacking in scholarly significance. 

The club, however, recognized by 1826 the deficiencies of 
its original plan; for it was resolved at the anniversary - 
dinner in that year that a work of real literary magnitude 
should be printed at the joint expense of the members of 
the club.2 It was decided in the following year that the 
manuscript of Havelock the Dane, which had been recently 
unearthed in the Bodleian by Frederic Madden, should 
be edited by him for the club. This was the first occasion 
on which the club resorted to outside aid in the prepara- 
tion of its publications. Madden’s remuneration for the 
work was to be one hundred pounds, and the copies were 
to be two for each member, instead of being confined, as 
the gift books had been, to the actual number of members.** 
The Havelock was by far the most noteworthy Roxburghe 
book that had yet been produced; and the success of this 
trial was followed up by the club in the subsequent em- 
ployment of some of the most gifted scholars of their day 
to oversee important publications. Among these later 
editors were Madden again, Joseph Stephenson, Sir Henry 
Ellis, Collier, Thomas Wright, Furnivall, Aldis Wright, 
Gollanez, and Bond. 

The selection of Madden, an outsider, to edit a Rox- 
burghe book, seemed to be a thorn in the side of Hasle- 
wood, who had hitherto done a substantial amount of edi- 
torial work upon the publications of the club members; it 
may be that he even thought that he detected an injury in 
the failure of the club to choose him for the important 
position. His chronicle of the Roxburghe doings records 
his opinion of the event: ‘‘A MS. not discovered by a 
Member of the Club, was selected and an excerpt obtained, 


18 Roxburghe Revels, 47-8. 
14 Tbid., 51. 


NINETEENTH CENTURY BOOK CLUBS 105 


not furnished by the industry, or under the inspection of 
any one Member; nor edited by a Member—but in fact 
after much pro and con, it was made a complete hireling 
‘concern.’’** Whether Haslewood was moved to these ob- 
servations by pique at his position, or by real disappoint- 
ment at what he regarded as a reflection upon the literary 
taste and scholarship of the members as a body, may be left 
to conjecture. The writer of the Athenaeum attack,7® 
however, attributes Haslewood’s feeling to pure jealousy: 
‘From his non-appointment, proceeded his disappoint- 
ment. He gave vent to his vexation in the paragraphs we 
have cited, and he, moreover, stirred up a man, a little abler 
than himself (where could he find an inferior?), to put 
togéther some hasty ‘remarks’ upon Sir F. Madden’s Glos- 
sary to Havelock the Dane, which remarks, in some respects, 
seemed a happy imitation of Haslewood.’’”7 The attack 
referred to was S. W. Singer’s Remarks on the Glossary 
to the ancient metrical Romance of Havelock the Dane, in 
a Letter to Francis Douce, to which Madden himself replied 
in the following year with a vigorous and thoroughly 
convincing defence.1® 

The election, in 1823, of Sir Walter Scott, who repre- 
sented the ‘‘author of Waverley,’’ may be regarded as 
anything but a condescension on the part of the club. 

15 Roxburghe Revels, 50. 

16 Ante, 101. 

17 Roxburghe Revels, 52. 

18 Hxamination of the ‘*‘Remarks on the Glossary to the ancient 
Metrical Romance of Havelock the Dane, in a Letter to Francis Douce, 
by S. W. Singer,’’ London, 1829. Accompanying the copy of 
Singer’s Remarks which was presented to Thomas Grenville, and 
which is bound in with the Grenville copy of Madden’s Havelock 
in the British Museum, is a letter from Singer to Grenville stating 
that he had prepared a rejoinder for Madden’s Examination of the 
Remarks, but had withheld its publication to avoid a literary con- 
troversy, and also because of ‘‘ Mr. Madden’s then afflicted state. ’’ 


106 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


The ‘‘Wizard of the North’’ could scarcely gain by 
association with a body which vaunted what was generally 
regarded as an unnecessary and undesirable exclusiveness. 
But what the club had to gain by the possession of so 
popular a writer, so keen an antiquary, and so gifted a 
scholar, was a very measurable something. Sir Walter 
graciously accepted the election, although he attended 
only one of the club dinners, in 1828, when he presented 
his book, Proceedings in the Court-Martial held upon John, 
Master of Sinclair, for the Murder of Ensign Schaw and 
Captain Schaw, 17th October, 1708. Dibdin, the nature of 
whose literary and historical taste could scarcely enable 
him to discern interest in this kind of document, classes 
Sir Walter’s gift as ‘‘among the least interesting and valu- 
able in our garland.’’® The book was, in fact, a rather 
striking departure from the traditional substance of the 
club’s publications, although it anticipated the character 
of many of the works issued by the Bannatyne, the Mait- 
land, and the other early Scotch publishing societies. 
After the brief storms of external criticism and internal 
jealousy which the Roxburghe Club seemed to weather 
serenely, the club became much less conspicuous than dur- 
ing its first twenty years, both because it had obviously 
demonstrated the general utility of its policies, and be- 
cause four or five other bibliophile clubs had come to share 
its glory. Despite all that can be said in eriticism of the 
privacy which makes its literary work decidedly less use- 
ful than it might be, it is really pleasant that to-day the first 
of the book clubs should without relinquishing its tradi- 
tions continue a benign existence into a period when pub- 
lishing societies represent possibly a more serious and 
efficient scholarship, but generally a less purely amateur 
spirit. The Roxburghe has never descended from its orig- 


19 Reminiscences of a Literary Life, I, 401-2. 


NINETEENTH CENTURY BOOK CLUBS 107 


inal exclusiveness—indeed, from the social standpoint, its 
membership list is probably more imposing to-day than it 
was a century ago. Social fastidiousness, however, it must 
be said, is not the sum of its existence; eminent names both 
in scholarship and public life appear upon its roster—so 
the election of a commoner is probably more than ever an 
enviable honor. The publishing policy of the club has been 
anything but static during its later years; passing over the 
trifling early issues, most of which have been printed else- 
where in more recent and emphatically improved editions, 
the genuine merits of the modern publications have made 
them not only the desiderata of book collectors, but indis- 
pensable material for scholars. Such are Stiirzinger’s 
three volumes of Guillaume de Deguileville, Gollanez’s edi- 
tion of The Parlement of the Thre Ages, Bercher’s The 
Nobility of Women, edited by Warwick Bond, and Randle 
Holme’s Academy of Armory. The Roxburghe Club has 
in its later period taken example from the early Scotch 
printing clubs by publishing historical material of decided 
value, but of such a character as to preclude the possibility 
of successful publication for the open market. In this class 
of thoroughly useful publications are the Copley and 
Gawdy letters, Herd’s Historia Quatuor Regum Angliae, 
the Ailesbury Memoirs, chartularies, local records, and 
college accounts. Considering its importance, the fecun- 
dity of the club is to-day not remarkable; but there can be 
no question as to the satisfactory quality of its recent pub- 
lications. In all, the books of the Roxburghe Club now 
comprise over one hundred and fifty volumes. 

When Scott wrote to Dibdin in 1823 his acceptance 
of the election to the Roxburghe Club, he concluded 
with a bit of news which it must have rejoiced the 
heart of the gossipy cleric to repeat to his cronies: 
**It will be not uninteresting to you to know, that a 
fraternity is about to be established here something on 


108 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


the plan of the Roxburghe Club; but having Scottish 
antiquities chiefly in view, it is to be called the Banna- 
tyne Club, from the celebrated antiquary, George Banna- 
tyne, who compiled by far the greatest record of old 
Scottish poetry. The first meeting is to be held on Thurs- 
day, when the health of the Roxburghe Club will be 
drunk.’’° A Scottish printing club had been first talked 
over by Sir Walter Scott, Robert Pitcairn, and David 
Laing.** In their respect for Scott’s attainments, his 
friends wished to name the club in honor of him, Maidment 
and Constable favoring the name of ‘‘ Abbotsford Club,”’ 
which Scott ‘‘pointedly declined’’ to allow. It was firmly 
in the minds of all the original projectors that the club 
should be modeled upon the Roxburghe, but that its object 
should be, as Sir Walter put it, ‘‘different, and I humbly 
think more useful.’’*? Scott intended that the club should 
accomplish something of real importance; he wrote in his 
journal in 1827, ‘‘I am in great hopes that the Bannatyne 
Club, by the assistance of Thomson’s wisdom, industry, and 
accuracy, will be something far superior to the Dilettanti 
model on which it started’’;?3 and in his review of Pit- 
eairn’s Criminal Trials,?* he enlarges upon the striking 
differences between the purposes of the Roxburghe Club 
and the Bannatyne. The Bannatyne, in the first place, led 
a quasi-public existence; it had little of the family secrecy 
about its concerns which had always characterized its pred- 

20 John Gibson Lockhart, Memoirs of the Life of Sir Walter Scott, 
5 v., 1902, IV, 97-8. 

21 For a detailed account of the events and correspondence preced- 
ing the foundation of the Bannatyne Club, see [James Maidment’s] 
Notices relative to the Bannatyne Club, Edinburgh, 1836; v—xiv. 

22 Ibid., ix. 

23 The Journal of Sir Walter Scott [edited by David Douglas], 2 v., 
1890; I, 350. 

24 Quarterly Review, XLIV, 438-75, 1831. The introductory por- 
tion of this article is a very winning defence of the book club idea. 


NINETEENTH CENTURY BOOK CLUBS 109 


ecessor. It began with a membership of thirty-one—the 
number of the Roxburghe—but applications for member- 
ship were so numerous that it was resolved to sacrifice the 
dilettante character of the club in the interests of the 
portion of the public which was disposed to support pro- 
ductive scholarship to the extent of five guineas a year, 
and the number was accordingly increased to one hundred.?® 
Not being satisfied with having extended its membership 
to such a point that it was practically freed from the re- 
proach of unuseful exclusiveness, the club decided that its 
publications which possessed an interest so general as to 
make a strictly limited issue an object merely of public 
envy should be printed in excess of the number actually 
required for the members, and put out for public sale. It 
is worth noting upon this point that the widespread 
clamor that publications of this description should not be 
withheld from a public anxious and ready to buy them, 
failed absolutely to justify itself, since the fact is recorded 
by the permanent secretary of the Bannatyne Club, that 
the books which were offered by the club for public sale— 
books of large value particularly to the Scottish anti- 
quaries—‘‘always proved a complete failure.’’** Another 
fact which dignified the methods of the Bannatyne Club 
was that lists of desiderata were constantly before the 
members of the club, and it was from such lists, which gave 
free opportunity for discussion as to the relative value of 
publications in prospect, that its works were in the majority 
of cases actually taken.*7 Further evidence of the wise 
and unhindered seriousness of the club’s purposes is found 

25 Bannatyne Club; Testimonial to the secretary, presented 27th 
February 1861 (appendix to Adversaria, Notices illustrative of some 
of the earlier Works printed for the Bannatyne Club, 1867), 6. 

26 Tbid., 6. 

27 See the three Albums of the Bannatyne Club, 1825, [1831], and 
1854. 


110 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


in its exchanges of valuable historical, antiquarian, and 
literary publications, and their occasional collaboration in 
such publications, with the Maitland Club, the Irish Archae- 
ological and Celtic Society, the Wodrow Society, and the 
Spottiswoode Society.*® 

The first president of the Bannatyne Club was, of course, 
Sir Walter Scott. He was succeeded at his death by 
Thomas Thomson, who had formerly served as vice-presi- 
dent, and who was one of the club’s most capable and 
energetic members. Of the one hundred and thirty odd 
publications of the club (excluding the garlands, cata- 
logues, and albums) which are recorded by Bohn, thirteen 
were edited as a whole or in part by Thomson.?® Indeed, 
the influence of his activity and personality upon the 
fortunes of the club seems to have been so great that after 
his death, in 1852, there was apparently some suggestion 
of permanently suspending its activities.2° The club, how- 
ever, was destined to survive but little longer. Interest in 
the Scottish book-clubs at least was by this time on the 
wane, and the Bannatyne was forced in 1851 to the rather 
humiliating expedient of inviting ten public libraries to 
subseribe to its publications as members, in order to sus- 
tain its former number. But even this plan proved. inade- 
quate as the older generation died away; and from 1856, 
when subscriptions to the club ceased, the body was very 
evidently moribund.** 

The final general meeting of the club was held in 1861, 
when the members gave directions for the closing of its 
affairs. On this occasion a handsome testimonial was 

28 See Henry G. Bohn’s list of the publications of the Bannatyne 
and Maitland Clubs in his Appendix to Lowndes’s Bibliographer’s 
Manual, VI, 8-26, 1864. 

29 Cosmo Innes, Memoir of Thomas Thomson, 1854, 251. 


30 Ibid., 207, 242. 
31 Bannatyne Club, Adversaria, [app.], 7. 


NINETEENTH CENTURY BOOK CLUBS Vili 


presented to David Laing, who had held the office of 
secretary to the club since its organization. It was at 
Scott’s personal instance that Laing had accepted this un- 
remunerative responsibility,®? which, it was soon foreseen, 
could be competently administered only if it were made 
permanent. lLaing’s protracted activity in the club ex- 
ceeded even Thomson’s in its tangible results: for twenty- 
six of the club’s imprints exclusive of the ‘‘albums’’ and 
‘‘oarlands,’’ he was responsible wholly or in part,** and 
his secretarial duties undoubtedly gave him responsibilities 
in the preparation of much of the club’s work which were 
not specifically acknowledged. His editorial work included 
what from the standpoint of the club must have been re- 
garded as its most important productions, the works of 
and relating to George Bannatyne. His association with 
the Bannatyne Club was only a single instance of his influ- 
ential connection with Scottish literary scholarship through- 
out the greater part of the nineteenth century. He oceu- 
pied in the publishing traditions of his day, in fact, a 
position equalled later only by Halliwell and Furnivall. 
Laing was also a member of the Maitland Club—but re- 
signed after two years**—and later of the Abbotsford Club. 
The printing societies for which he labored included the 
Wodrow, of which he was a founder, the Society of Anti- 
quaries of Scotland, of which he was for some years presi- 
dent, the Shakespeare Society, and the Spalding Club; he 
also edited three volumes for the Hunterian Club, although 
he was not one of its members. The literary services which 
Laing rendered to his country are still regarded by Scots- 
men with real sentiment. His editions of Dunbar, Henry- 
son, and Lyndesay, for example, beautifully made, as well 

32 Tbid., 5. 

33 See the valuable bibliography of Laing in Thomas George 
Stevenson’s Notices of David Laing, 1878, 43-7. 

34 Catalogue of the Works printed for the Maitland Club, 1836, 35. 


112 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


as effectively edited, are fondly sought for by Scotch 
collectors, even though their textual value has been con- 
siderably diminished by the appearance of the later edi- 
tions of the Early English Text and the Scottish Text 
Societies. 

The other prominent scholars who worked upon the pub- 
lications of the Bannatyne Club included Cosmo Innes, 
John Hill Burton, Patrick Chalmers, and David Irving, 
who edited a great amount of local historical and record 
material, and also Sir Frederick Madden and Joseph 
Stevenson, more widely known outside of their connection 
with the Bannatyne. To specify the most notable titles 
among the club publications would be quite superfluous, 
but it may not be without profit to recall some of the most 
valuable in the literary field. These were, in addition to 
the Bannatyne memorials and works, Alexander Hume’s 
poems, the Buik of Alexander, Buchanan’s De Scriptoribus 
Scotis, the collection of Gawaine romances edited by 
Madden, Gavin Douglas’s Aeneid and Palice of Honour, 
poems by Henryson, and a quantity of miscellaneous mate- 
rial of lesser literary value. 

The Bannatyne Club may be said to have been, all in all, 
the soundest, the most useful, and the most democratic of 
all the book clubs. The genuine value of what it produced, 
contrasted, for example, with the merely curious interest of 
many of the early Roxburghe publications, is marked by 
Dibdin with what must have been a touch of humiliation: 
‘*Both the Bannatyne and Maitland Clubs must be allowed 
to have outstripped our own, not less in the rapid succes- 
sion, than in the instructive complexion, of their publi- 
cations.’ ’** 

The Maitland Club, the object of which was ‘‘to print 
works illustrative of the antiquities, history, and litera- 


35 Reminiscences of a literary Life, I, 476. 


NINETEENTH CENTURY BOOK CLUBS 113 


ture of Scotland,’’?* was founded in 1828. Its personnel 
included many of the members of the Bannatyne—Scott, 
Laing, Pitcairn, Thomson, and Tytler among them—and 
its aims corresponded closely with those of the earlier club, 
although as a Glasgow organization, the Maitland Club in- 
clined a little more towards localism than did its pred- 
ecessor. The members of the Maitland were at first 
seventy in number, and later one hundred; but in spite of 
the limitation of its membership, the body was, like the 
Bannatyne, sufficiently alive to its public position to place 
its issues in general sale when they were ‘‘of such impor- 
tanee as to render it expedient to extend their circulation 
beyond the members.’’*? The most useful textual publica- 
tions of this club were the poems of Richard Maitland of 
Lethington, the patron saint of the club, Henryson’s fables, 
Drummond of Hawthornden’s poems, the romances of 
Beves of Hamtoun, Lancelot du Lak, and Clariodorus, and 
the works of Sir Thomas Urquhart of Cromarty. Many of 
the publications of the Maitland were issued jointly with 
the Bannatyne Club, and the organization had less frequent 
associations of the same kind with the Abbotsford and the 
Spalding Clubs. The Maitland Club closed its publications 
in 1859, with the issue of its seventy-fifth volume.*® 

The Abbotsford Club, founded in 1834 by W. B. D. D. 
Turnbull in memory of Sir Walter Scott,°® included like- 
wise many of the most active members of both the Banna- 
tyne and Maitland Clubs. The purposes of this club were 
substantially those of the two other Scottish book clubs, 

36 Catalogue of the Works printed for the Maitland Club, 3. 

87 Tbid., 6. 

88 Henry G. Bohn, Appendix relating to the Books of literary and 
scientific Societies; in Lowndes’s Bibliographer’s Manual, VI, 1864, 
20-26. Henry B. Wheatley, How to form a Library, 2nd ed., 1886, 


187. 
89 Henry B. Wheatley, op. cit., 187. 


9 


114 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


although the club was formed ostensibly for the purpose of 
publishing ‘‘all materials which can throw light on the 
ancient history or literature of any country, anywhere 
described or discussed by the Author of Waverley.’’*° The 
publications of the Abbotsford Club did, in fact, possess 
much of the tone and color of the literary preferences of 
the Author of Waverley. Fourteen of its thirty-one 
volumes were reprints of literary material, including three 
volumes of mystery and morality plays, and eight medieval 
romances.*t This is a higher proportion of literary publi- 
cations than is found in any of the contemporary book clubs 
save the Roxburghe. The last volume issued by the Mait- 
land Club was likewise the last one issued by the Abbots- 
ford, although the organization apparently continued an 
inactive existence until 1866.* 

The form of organization and the aims of the Rox- 
burghe, Bannatyne, Maitland, and Abbotsford Clubs were 
closely similar. The last three took example from the Rox- 
burghe even to the detail of the external form of their 
publications—a luxurious quarto in the traditional ‘‘ Rox- 
burghe’’ binding; and although the Scottish clubs were 
considerably larger, and for that reason, considerably less 
exclusive, than the Roxburghe, the fact remains that the 
aims of all of these clubs were in no respect popular. The 
Spalding Club,** the Spenser Society,** and the Hunterian 
Club*® had all of them some of the distinguishing marks 
of the book clubs, as well as of the typical printing 
societies of a popular stamp—as for example, publications 

40 John Gibson Lockhart, Memoirs of the Life of Sir Walter Scott, 
IV, 100. 

41 Henry G. Bohn, op. cit., 36-9. 

42 Henry B. Wheatley, op. cit., 188. 

43 Post., 126. 


44 Post., 164-6. 
45 Post., 169-71. 


NINETEENTH CENTURY BOOK CLUBS 115 


of a more expensive kind than the plain octavo of the pub- 
lishing societies, and a limitation upon the number of 
members, in no case, however, less than two hundred. But 
the traditional form of the Roxburghe Club and its imi- 
tators was not followed by the few later bibliophile clubs; 
and with the demise of the three Scotch book clubs shortly 
after the middle of the century, the Roxburghe was left 
alone in the field which it had opened. 

The social incentives of the bibliophile were satisfied at 
intervals, however, by the formation of publishing clubs 
of similarly defined, but generally more diffuse purposes 
than those of the Roxburghe. Probably the most important 
of these was the Philobiblon Society, which was apparently 
founded chiefly through the efforts of Richard Monckton 
Milnes, and under the patronage of the Prince Consort, in 
1853.*° The number of members of the Philobiblon Society 
was limited, as in the Roxburghe Club, to forty.*7 The 
purpose of the society was to publish annually a volume of 
historical, biographical, bibliographical, and literary mis- 
cellanies; and as the roll of the society included a number 
of distinguished foreigners, it was not considered necessary 
that the papers should be published in English. It was the 
boast of the society that ‘‘not a single copy’’ of its pub- 
heations was placed upon sale.*® The Miscellanies were 
exquisite octavos upon hand-made paper. The articles in 
these ten volumes of mélanges were separately paged 
throughout, by reason of the fact that the arrangement of 
the annual volumes was designed to be only temporary, and 
was ultimately to be replaced by a subject classification.*® 
Needless to say, this method of classification was never 
carried out. 

46 Octave Delepierre, Analyse des Travaux de Société des Philo- 
biblon de Londres, 1862, 1; Henry G. Bohn, op. cit., 82. 

47 Octave Delepierre, op. cit., 2. 

48 Ibid., 2. 

49 Tbid., 4. 


116 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


The contents of the volumes were largely inedited frag- 
ments, letters, notices, and bibliographical comments. The 
contributions of literary value were in rather a marked 
minority, but included some useful items, such as unpub- 
lished letters by Sterne and Dr. Johnson, inedited poems 
by John Donne and Samuel Daniel (and these latter, by the 
way, were not by Daniel, but by Ben Jonson), a variant 
version of Keats’s Hyperion, eight letters between James 
Thomson and David Mallet, Burke’s Table Talk, and mis- 
cellaneous notes relative to Johnson, Walpole, and Chester- 
field. Under the name of this society there were also issued 
by contributors nine extra volumes, including Lord Herbert 
of Cherbury’s Expedition to the Isle of Khe, Henry G. 
Bohn’s Biography and Bibliography of Shakespeare (only 
the biographical section of which was new), and two 
volumes contributed by Henry Huth: Ancient Ballads and 
Broadsides, and Inedited Poetical Miscellames.*° 

The book club as an institution is now much less impor- 
tant from every standpoint than it was a half century ago. 
The history of the Scottish clubs has apparently shown that 
when the animating club spirit of exclusiveness is strongly 
affected by considerations of public utility, the club as a 
club ceases to exist. In addition, it is probably true that 
the higher practical value of the output of the larger pub- 
lishing societies has demonstrated the relative inferiority of 
the book club for any other than social purposes. For these 
reasons at least, the book clubs—always except the Rox- 
burghe—have gradually disappeared, until all that passes 
under the name to-day are a few private bibliophile clubs 
which do not pretend to any public functions—for example, 

50 Delepierre’s bibliography of the Philobiblon Society, which was 
issued in 1862, is of course incomplete. A complete bibliography of 
the society may be found in Bernard Quaritch’s Account of the great 


Learned Societies and Associations and of the chief Printing Clubs of 
Great Britain and Ireland, 1886; 438-8. 


NINETEENTH CENTURY BOOK CLUBS Lu7 


the Sette of Odde Volumes—and a number of clubs of re- 
stricted membership, such as the Malone Society®? and the 
Edinburgh Bibliographical Society ;°* these are neverthe- 
less sufficiently large, and their publications of sufficiently 
wide circulation, to make it advisable for us to class them as 
publishing societies rather than book clubs. 

Latterly the book elub idea has acquired many commer- 
cial features, and has in some eases, probably more partic- 
ularly in America, served purely commercial ends. It 
would be a difficult matter to say just where a book club 
ceases to be a book club, and becomes a promoter’s venture, 
but there can be little question that the imprint of many 
of our modern clubs is nothing more nor less than a pub- 
lisher’s trade-mark; and it is obvious that in many cases 
of this kind it is generally unnecessary to take very seri- 
ously the scholarly quality of the work so produced. 

Of much more importance in the aggregate than the pub- 
lications of the book clubs were the publications of the print- 
ing societies, which began to spring up rapidly between 
1830 and 1850, while the clubs were at the pinnacle of 
their vogue. There was in general no social aspect to these 
societies, since their existence was something in the nature 
of an actual protest against the undemocratic attitude of 
“the printing clubs. Their meetings were ordinarily of a 
purely fiscal nature, for the greater number did not include 
in their programs any provision even for scholarly com- 
munications between members, one of the most familiar 
functions of earlier learned societies; hence most of these 
early publishing societies had no ‘‘transactions’’ to meas- 
ure and record the reaction of their publications upon the 
scholarly temper. In fact, in most of these bodies the pro- 
ceedings of the society were understood to be taken up so 
exclusively with the balancing of the accounts of income 


51 Post., 197-8. 
52 Post., 134-5. 


118 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


and expenditure for publishing, that all the actual business 
of the society was conducted by a council or by the execu- 
tive officers. It is of course quite apparent that such insti- 
tutions have been called learned societies largely by virtue 
of what the word society does not imply, for in effect 
they were nothing more than simple publishing projects, in 
which the members—who might as well have been called 
subscribers—secured for a small sum annually a volume or 
two which came within the scope of the society’s declared 
objects, but in the selection or preparation of which they 
had very little responsibility or choice. 

This fact does not, of course, diminish the value of what 
was effected by these agencies. It might be said, indeed, that 
the conduct of these societies upon such lines was almost 
inevitable, since without question the majority of their 
members, scattered as they were in most cases not merely 
throughout England but throughout continents, could not 
have interested themselves in the routine business of their 
organizations. The concentration of the fiscal control and 
scholarly policies of the societies in the hands of a small 
minority of the membership, therefore, while it provided 
opportunities for exploitation and downright abuse of per- 
sonal privileges, nevertheless placed the working machinery 
of such organizations in hands that were in nearly all cases 
capable of efficient and honorable administration. So the 
remark so often passed in criticism of these bodies, both 
then and now, that they are frequently ‘‘one man’’ organi- 
zations, means, in the last analysis, that the vigor and 
industry of a very few well-endowed scholars may produce 
direction and results out of an ill-defined purpose. It may be 
said, in fact, that throughout the history of all these bodies, 
the public have been with scarce an exception substantial 
gainers, and the managers and editors have been satisfied 
with a modicum of distinction and a minimum of remunera- 
tion in return for much hard labor and self-sacrifice. 


NINETEENTH CENTURY BOOK CLUBS 119 


The purposes of these printing societies, then, were 
frankly utilitarian. They endeavored to issue intrinsically 
important works in sufficient numbers to make the expense 
of publication relatively small; and the name and plan of 
a society organization assured an immediate sale for the 
bulk of their issues. Their primary consideration—the 
cutting down of the expense of publication to a minimum— 
necessitated a departure from the publishing policy of the 
old book clubs. For this reason the recherché volumes of 
the Roxburghe and the Bannatyne were replaced by the 
substantial and sometimes rather homely books that are 
familiar in the bindings of the Surtees, the Camden, and 
the Early English Text Societies. The gain in utility was 
naturally at the cost of sentiment, except in such instances 
as the English Historical Society and the Hunterian Club, 
which endeavored to restore some of the fastidious bookish- 
ness of the earlier clubs. 

Before taking up in detail the question of the work of 
these general publishing societies in furthering literary cul- 
ture, we must return to an organization with which we are 
already more or less familiar, and the chief claim of which 
upon our attention so far has lain in its complete failure to 
explore a field in which its publishing activities in the nine- 
teenth century were to have a very substantial influence. 

As early as 1811 John Josias Conybeare communicated to 
the Society of Antiquaries a series of papers relating to 
early English literature.°* The papers included notices of 
the Exeter Book and observations upon Anglo-Saxon 
metrics; and they were followed by valuable communica- 
tions of a kindred nature by Conybeare and others,** until 
apparently the society as a body was awakened to the 

53 These papers were published in Archaeologia, XVII, 173-5, 
180-8, 189-92, 193-7, 257-66, 267-74, 1814. 

54 Archaeologia, XVIII, 21-8, XIX, 314-34, XXI, 43-78, 88-91, 
XXII, 350-398, 1815-29. 


120 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


importance of the study of old English literature as some- 
thing more than a mere adjunct to archaeological research. 
Conybeare’s contributions to Archacologia, with a large 
and valuable addition of illustrative material, were edited 
and published by his brother, William Daniel Conybeare, 
in 1826, but apparently not under the auspices of the 
Society of Antiquaries. 

Conybeare’s communications to the society had consti- 
tuted one of the most powerful stimuli to a revival of inter- 
est among his countrymen in old English letters, which was 
contemporary with, and largely influenced by, the rehabili- 
tation of Norse studies by Thorkelin and Grundtvig, and 
the investigations of the two Grimms in Germanic phi- 
lology.“> The most efficient leaders in the Anglo-Saxon 
revival in England were Bosworth, Kemble, and Thorpe; 
and it was at Thorpe’s instance that the Society of Anti- 
quaries in 1831 determined to take up the burden of pub- 
lishing the remains of old English literature. It is probable 
that the arguments of Thorpe were powerfully seconded 
by Grundtvig’s circulation of a proposal to begin a series 
of publications to include the valuable remains of Anglo- 
Saxon literature, a project which seems to have struck the 
English literary students of the day as something in the 
nature of a scholarly challenge.®® Thorpe and his friends 
accordingly planned to redeem English scholarship from 
its neglect of opportunity, which was made all the more 
conspicuous by contrast with the industry of foreign 
scholars in old English studies, by endeavoring in 1831 to 
found a society for the publication of unprinted Anglo- 
Saxon works;°? but since many of the supporters of the 

55See Wilcker’s Grundriss zur Geschichte der angelsdchsischen 
Literatur, 1885, 45-8. 

56 John Petheram, An historical Sketch of the Progress and present 
State of Anglo-Saxon Literature in England, 1840, 141-2. 


57 John M. Kemble, Letter to Francisque Michel; in Michel’s 
Bibliotheque Anglo-Saxonne, 1837, pp. 1-63 (21). 


NINETEENTH CENTURY BOOK CLUBS 121 


proposed society were fellows of the Society of Antiquaries, 
their proposals were submitted to the Council of the Anti- 
quaries. It was decided soon afterward that the Anti- 
quaries should undertake the projected publications, plac- 
ing the issues on public sale, but permitting members of 
the society to receive them at half price. A committee of 
the society consisting of twenty-two members was therefore 
appointed to supervise the issue of these publications. On 
this committee were a number of scholars thoroughly 
equipped for the work, including Henry Ellis, Francis 
Palgrave, and Frederic Madden, all as yet undistinguished 
by knightly dignities. A concession to the undeveloped state 
of old English scholarship is seen in the decision of the 
society to print the works in the original tongue and char- 
acter, but with an accompanying translation into modern 
English.*® The result of these plans of the society was 
the publication of the Caedmonic poems by Thorpe in 18382, 
of the Codex Exoniensis in 1842, and of Sir Frederic Mad- 
den’s edition of Layamon’s Brut in three volumes in 1847, 
With the completion of this series, an emphatically neces- 
sary and very timely contribution to the national literary 
resources, the Society of Antiquaries once more withdrew 
from its active patronage of letters, but with the distinction 
of having been the first learned society to lend its support 
to early English textual scholarship. 

To return, then, to the history of the general publishing 
societies: the Surtees Society, which was the pioneer among 
them, was established by the Rev. James Raine in 1834. 
The Society was founded in memory of the recently de- 
ceased Robert Surtees of Mainsforth, the distinguished, if 
possibly over-canny antiquary, and its specific purposes 
were announced to be ‘‘the publishing such inedited manu- 

58 Prospectus of a Series of Publications of Angla-Saxon and early 


English literary Remains, under the Superintendence of a Committee 
of the Society of Antiquaries of London [1831 or —2], iii-iv. 


122 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


scripts as illustrate the intellectual, the moral, the religious, 
and the social condition of those parts of England and 
Scotland, included, on the east, between the Humber and 
the Frith of Forth, and on the west between the Mersey 
and the Clyde, from the earliest period to the time of the 
Restoration.’*® The society numbered in the first year of 
its existence about one hundred and thirty members, and 
increased in numbers rapidly. A limit of three hundred 
and fifty was placed upon the membership ; but the publica- 
tions of the society, which were printed considerably in 
excess of this number, were also for sale to outsiders.® 
The earlier publications were edited for the greater part 
by Raine, who became secretary of the society upon its 
actual foundation, and whose services in this capacity were 
quite as indispensable as were Laing’s to the Bannatyne 
Club. Considering the limitations placed upon the scope 
of the society’s work by the definition of its purposes, it 
has produced a series of publications really remarkable for 
their general importance. Many societies of similarly 
local interests have produced works of much more restricted 
value; but the Surtees Society, while choosing its material 
from its elected neighborhood,—and over half of its pub- 
lications are connected with the town and cathedral of 
Durham—has published materials of the broadest historical 
and literary value. What it has contributed to the study 
of English literature generally is typical of the importance 
of its publications in other fields; the principal items in 
this class are the Towneley Mysteries, the Durham Anglo- 
Saxon ritual, Jordan Fantosme’s chronicle, two volumes of 
Anglo-Saxon and early English Fsalters, Latin Hymns of 
the Anglo-Saxon Church, the Lindisfarne and Rushworth 
Gospels, in four volumes, and a metrical Life of St. Cuth- 
bert. 


59 Taylor, George, A memoir of Robert Surtees, New edition, with 
additions, by James Raine, n. d. [1852]; 195-6. 
60 Henry G. Bohn, op. cit., 33. 


NINETEENTH CENTURY BOOK CLUBS 123 


The Camden Society was a still further concession to 
the popular demands upon English scholarship. This 
society, named in honor of William Camden, was founded 
in 1838, four years after the formation of the Surtees 
Society, to the example of which the later society admit- 
tedly owed its existence. The Camden Society was, how- 
ever, by reason of the fact that its interests were not 
restricted to a locality, and that its annual fee of only a 
guinea and its practically unrestricted membership made 
it emphatically a popular society, by all means the most 
widely important of the general publishing societies of 
this period. It was, in fact, the wholly practical basis of 
organization in the Camden Society which gave to Collier, 
Crofton Croker, Dyce, and Thomas Wright, all of them 
members of the Camden, their cue for the establishment of 
similar bodies for the furtherance of scholarship specifically 
in the literary field.** The objects of this society were ‘‘to 
perpetuate, and render accessible, whatever is valuable, but 
at present little known, amongst the materials for the civil, 
ecclesiastical, or literary history of the United Kingdom.’’® 
The society began publication on a large scale, but the five 
hundred copies of its first book were quickly taken up, and 
a reimpression was made in the same year. At the first 
anniversary meeting, when the members already numbered 
over a thousand, it was decided to limit the number of 
members for the future to twelve hundred. The publica- 
tions of the society were fixed therefore at twelve hundred 
and fifty impressions until 1848, when the number was 
again reduced to a thousand, and subsequently to six hun- 
dred.®** The decrease of popular interest in the society was 

61 For a sketch of the early history of the Camden Society see John 
Gough Nichols’s Descriptive Catalogue of the Works of the Camden 
Society, 1862, iii—viii. 

62 Tbid., iv. 

63 Ibid., iii. 

64 [bid., iv. 


124 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


apparently brought about partly at least by the formation 
of the Parker, Percy, and Shakespeare Societies within two 
years of its establishment, with the consequent attraction 
to their ranks of members of the Camden to whom the 
special interests represented in the newer societies appealed 
more strongly than the miscellaneous interests of the 
Camden.® But the membership in the Camden Society 
showed no marked decrease until the close of the following 
decade. A second effect of these later societies upon their 
predecessor was that the announcements of their provinces 
of interest served to limit considerably the field of the 
Camden Society’s publications, as did also the opening of 
the Rolls Series in 1848. 

The accomplishments of the society in the realm of his- 
torical scholarship, which has been altogether its most use- 
ful field, especially in later years, included the publication 
of some valuable chronicles, before the Master of the Rolls 
preempted this domain, and monastic, political, and social 
evidences of very great importance. Its literary publica- 
tions opened with Bishop Bale’s Kynge Johan and Thomas 
Wright’s collection of Political Songs; and even though 
the literary societies soon appropriated this province, the 
Camden Society’s contributions to literary study have since 
been, at least for the time being, invaluable. The 1842 
volume of Arthurian romances, the Promptorium Parvu- 
lorum, the Thornton Romances, the Peterborough Chroni- 
cle, the works of or attributed to Walter Map, the Ancren 
Riwle, the Milton Papers, and a quantity of correspondence, 
diaries, miscellaneous poems, and other material of the 
greatest importance to students of literature, appeared 
first in the publications of this society. It is needless to 
say, however, that in most cases these early publications 
have been superseded. What the Camden Society, there- 


65 Ibid., iv-v. 


NINETEENTH CENTURY BOOK CLUBS 125 


fore, has accomplished directly in the interests of literary 
scholarship gives it an undisputed place not merely as a 
powerful example and influence for the later literary pub- 
lishing societies, but as a literary agency of emphatically 
great importance in itself. 

The First Series of the Camden publications extended 
from 1838 to 1872, and comprised one hundred and five 
volumes. In this First Series appeared almost all the 
works of literary significance that the society produced. 
The Second Series of the publications, in sixty-two volumes, 
which was closed in 1898, included the commonplace book 
of John Milton, and the letter book of Gabriel Harvey. In 
1897 the Camden Society was absorbed by the Royal His- 
torical Society,®® and the publications of the Camden Soci- 
ety were continued from that date as the Camden Series of 
the Royal Historical Society. The result of the amalgama- 
tion was-:of course to limit still further the scope of the 
Camden publications, and the new Camden Series has there- 
fore been restricted almost exclusively to historical material. 
A single reprint of some literary connection has appeared 
in the re-clothed Camden Series—The Travels and Life of 
Sir Thomas Hoby. 

The English Historical Society, founded in the same year 
as the Camden, was something of a book club, and some- 
thing of a general publishing society. Its membership was 
limited to one hundred, and its list of members, being 
limited, was properly embellished with many aristocratic 
and bookish names. Many of the members were, however, 
scholars of note, including Joseph Stevenson, Thomas 
Duffus Hardy, Panizzi, and Kemble. To the members the 
society issued handsome tall octavo volumes on hand made 
paper; but issues of their publications on smaller paper 


66 Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, New Series, XII, 
232, 1898. 


126 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


were sold to the public—though at a price.®’ The object of 
the society was stated to be ‘‘to print an accurate, uniform, 
and elegant edition of the most valuable English chronicles, 
from the earliest period to the accession of Henry the 
Highth.’’** It was intended, however, to include in the 
publications material of collateral historical value, includ- 
ing lives of saints and historical poems.®® The society has, 
therefore, for the student of old literature, an obvious 1m- 
portance, both in its direct and indirect aims. The literary 
value, if not the historical value, of its publications, how- 
ever, is diminished somewhat by a system of editing which 
deliberately eliminated from the text irrelevant and bor- 
rowed material.7° In the eighteen years of the society’s 
existence it issued a valuable series of Latin-English his- 
torical works, including Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica and 
minor works, Gildas and Nennius, and the chronicles of 
William of Malmesbury, Nicholas Trivet, and Florence of 
Worcester. The most important of the society’s publica- 
tions was Kemble’s Codex Diplomaticus Aevi Saxonici, in 
six volumes, 1845-8. 

The Spalding Club, established in Aberdeen in 1839, was 
in reality not a book club, but a publishing society, if we 
accept the established distinction between the social aims 
and exclusive nature of the one, and the business-like 
organization and missionary principles of the other. This 
society was brought into existence by Joseph Robertson and 
John Stuart,"* and its field was intended to comprise ‘‘the 
literary, historical, genealogical, and topographical remains 

67 Henry G. Bohn, op. cit., 131. 

68 General introduction [to the publications of the society]; in 
Venerabilis Bedae Historia Ecclesiastica, recensuit Josephus Steven- 
son, 1838; i. 

69 Tbid., xiii-xiv. 

70 Ibid., iii—xi. 

71 [John Stuart], Notices of the Spalding Club, 1871; 1. 


NINETEENTH CENTURY BOOK CLUBS 127 


of the north-eastern counties of Scotland.*? The numbers 
of the club were at first limited to three hundred, but the 
extent of the public participation in the project soon made 
it advisable to extend the membership to five hundred. The 
prominent members of the Spalding Club included, in 
addition to Robertson and Stuart, Cosmo Innes, David 
Laing, William Knight, Thomas Thomson, and Robert Pit- 
cairn. Conditions made the secretary’s office in this society 
—as was true, too, in the Bannatyne Club and the Mait- 
land Club—one of supreme importance, and acknowledg- 
ment of Stuart’s services to the society in this position took 
the form of an elaborate memorial when the club was dis- 
solved in 1871.%* Exceptional as was the quality of the 
Spalding Club’s publications relating to the history and 
antiquities of the northern shires, its sole contribution to 
Anglo-Scottish literary study was Cosmo Innes’s edition of 
Barbour’s Brus, issued in 1857. The Book of Deir, how- 
ever, edited by Stuart, and published in 1869, was an 
important, and for the society, an expensive, reprint of 
Celtic material. 

The Spalding Club was ‘‘re-constituted’’ as the New 
Spalding Club in 1886. The only publication of the revived 
club which may possess interest for the student of literature 
are the two volumes of Musa Latina Aberdonensis, 1892-5. 

The first of the ecclesiastical publishing societies was the 
Parker Society, named in memory of Archbishop Parker. 
It was established at Cambridge in 1840, and continued in 
existence until 1853, publishing in this short period fifty- 
five volumes of ecclesiastical and devotional literature. In 
this amount of work there is, needless to say, much of the 
highest value to the student of English prose. The society’s 
publications included complete or partial works, or re- 
mains, of Ridley, Grindal, Cranmer, Coverdale, Latimer, 


72 Ibid., 2. 
73 Ibid., 94-110. 


128 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


Jewel, Tyndale, Bale, and Whitgift; and in addition a 
large quantity of liturgical relics and a volume of Eliza- 
bethan devotional poetry. The Parker Society had in its 
day a membership phenomenally large, extending at one 
time to more than seven thousand.’* As evidence of the 
relative lack of interest in literary studies at this time, it 
is useful to compare this number with the mere thousand of 
the Shakespeare Society and the twelve hundred of the 
Camden. , 

The Wodrow Society was instituted in 1841, largely 
through Laing’s endeavors, for the publication of the early 
writers of the Reformed Church of Scotland.”® Its prov- 
ince is comparable, therefore, with that of the Parker 
Society in England. It would be impossible to place the 
bulk of its publications, however, upon the same plane of 
intrinsic importance as those of the Parker Society, for 
the simple reason that most of the Scottish ‘‘church 
fathers’’ count for relatively little in literary history. The 
society did publish, though, in 1846-7, two volumes of 
Knox’s History of the Reformation in Scotland, edited by 
Laing, which were to form the opening volumes for a com- 
plete edition of Knox’s works. The society collapsed, how- 
ever, in 1848; but Laing, sticking to his prospectus, carried 
on the work of completing the promised edition, and issued 
the sixth and last volume in 1864. This publication, un- 
successful at first under the society’s auspices, and later in 
the hands of the publishers who took over the third, fourth, 
and fifth volumes, is a real monument to Laing’s scholarly 
devotion. 

The Spottiswoode Society issued between 1843 and 1851 
six volumes of the writings of the Episcopal clergy in 

74 A, Hume, The Learned Societies and Printing Clubs of the United 
Kingdom, 1853; 268. 

75 Thomas George Stevenson, Notices of David Laing, 1878, 23-5. 


NINETEENTH CENTURY BOOK CLUBS 129 


Scotland; none of these publications, however, requires 
special comment. 

The Chetham Society, like the Surtees Society, limited 
its labors to a special district of England, ‘‘the Palatine 
Counties of Lancaster and Chester’’; but, as with the 
Surtees Society, its interests were by no means restricted 
to unprofitable localism. The society was founded at Man- 
chester in 1843, and included among its members from 
the beginning scholars and antiquaries of national reputa- 
tion. Among the most active members of the early council 
were James Crossley and the Rev. Thomas Corser. The 
membership was limited to three hundred and fifty (at 
present there are almost one hundred institutions upon 
the subscription list), and the annual subscription was 
fixed at one pound; no significant change has been made in 
the rules of the society since its foundation. In sixty-eight 
years of existence the Chetham Society has issued one hun- 
dred and fourteen volumes in its original series (1843-92), 
and sixty-nine volumes in a new series. About thirty of 
the society’s volumes supply more or less valuable mate- 
rial for the literary student, consisting largely of local 
poetry. The most noteworthy of these special works are 
Henry Bradshaw’s Holy Life and History of Saynt Wer- 
burghe, John Byrom’s poems, in four parts, edited by A. 
W. Ward, and Byrom’s Private Journal and Literary 
Remains, edited in the earlier series by Richard Parkinson. 
A very substantial and interesting descriptive bibliography 
of early poetry was the Collectanea Anglo-Poetica, a cata- 
logue of Corser’s library in this field, begun by Corser in 
1860 and completed by Crossley in 1883, in all eleven 
numbers. ? 

The Caxton Society was established in 1845 ‘‘for the 
publication in a cheap and commodious form, of chronicles 
and other documents hitherto unpublished, illustrative of 
the history and miscellaneous literature of the British Isles 

10 


130 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


during the middle ages.’’*® The society had no stated sub- 
scription, but the members placed themselves under obli- 
gation to take one copy each of all the books printed by the 
society; and all the income from the sales of the separate 
volumes remaining after the payment of the expenses of 
publication were to be regarded as the remuneration of 
the editors. The original members were thirty-three in 
number, and included Bosworth, the Rev. J. A. Giles, Pal- 
grave, and Thomas Wright. The Caxton Society published 
between 1844 and 1854 sixteen volumes, the first three of 
which were issued not with the imprint of the society, but 
under the serial title Scriptores Monastict. The first 
volume to bear the society’s name was Silgrave’s Chronicle, 
published in 1849. The lack of system in publication seems 
in many other respects to imply that the editors of the 
separate volumes carried the arrangements very much in 
their own hands and that there was no really effective ad- 
ministrative oversight for the work of the various editors; 
the volumes were not numbered in the actual order of their 
issue, and they were printed by different publishers with- 
out any approach to uniformity in their make-up. The 
great bulk of the society’s publications are in Latin, largely 
letters, brief biographies, and, most importantly for our 
purposes, chronicles. These last include Geoffrey of Mon- 
mouth’s Historia Britonum, the Chronicon Angliae Petri- 
burgense, and others of less importance. The society also 
published two documents of more immediate literary inter- 
est: Peter Heylin’s versified Memorial of Bishop Waynflete, 
and Grosseteste’s Chasteau d’Amour, with an English 
version. 

The only remaining society of the first half of the nine- 
teenth century whose publications have had a wide impor- 

76 Information relative to the organization of the Caxton Society 


is given in the announcements of the society in various volumes of 
its publications. 


NINETEENTH CENTURY BOOK CLUBS 131 


tance in the study of English literature is the Hakluyt 
Society, which was founded in 1846 with the object of 
printing ‘‘rare and valuable voyages, travels, naval expedi- 
tions, and other geographical records.’’7 The society 
opened with an annual subscription of one guinea, but in- 
creased this later to a guinea and a half. For this modest 
amount the subscribers received down to the year 1898 a 
First Series of one hundred volumes; and twenty-nine 
volumes of the Second Series have been issued to the year 
1912. The Hakluyt Society has published a series of travel 
books which possess the greatest literary value, including 
not only early works by Hawkins, Ralegh, Strachey, 
Hakluyt, Dr. Giles Fletcher, Baffin, and others, but impor- 
tant sixteenth and seventeenth century translations of 
foreign books of travel. In addition to the regular series of 
publications, the society has supported as an extra series 
the Messrs. MacLehose’s reprints of the most important 
early English travel books, including a complete Hakluyt 
in twelve volumes, and a Purchas in twenty. 

It is of course important to mention that many mono- 
graphs on literary topics appeared throughout the second 
quarter of the century in the publications of such bodies 
as the Society of Antiquaries and the British Archaeolog- 
ical Association. The most prominent of literary scholars 
found these agencies of publication indispensable when 
there were no special journals for literary scholarship. 
Less distinguished scholars found in the periodical or occa- 
- sional publications of local societies opportunity for more 
or less meritorious articles on literary topics. The impor- 
tance of these bodies for such purposes is not to be under- 
estimated ; and it is even now growing. The skeptic on this 
point would do well to look over a file of the publications of 
the Birmingham and Midland Institute, the Powysland 


77 [Announcement] The Hakluyt Society, 1912, ii. 


132 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


Club, or the county archaeological and antiquarian societies 
—for example, those of Cumberland, Devonshire, Norfolk, 
Shropshire, and Somersetshire. 

Since the middle of the nineteenth century there have 
been comparatively few new societies formed, barring the 
literary learned societies themselves, whose interests have 
touched very closely those of literary students. In the 
collapse of society activities between 1850 and 1870, only 
the most useful and influential survived; and to these very 
few have been added since, save in special fields. In addi- 
tion, with the increase in the number of special societies in 
later years there has been a distinct tendency to more 
clearly defined specialization, so that if a text or an article 
of literary import is included in the publications of an 
historical or an archaeological society nowadays, it is 
merely a coincidence. Such organizations, therefore, as 
the Oxford Historical Society, the Royal Historical Society, 
and the modern ecclesiastical societies, have by no means 
the points of contact with literary study that the Surtees 
Society, the British Archaeological Association, and the 
Parker Society, for example, had in their earlier days. In 
fact, those even of the general publishing societies which 
have lived through their period of trial are, as we have 
seen, to-day of very much less significance to the student of 
literature than they were at an earlier date. Sufficient 
illustration of this is found in the fact that the Surtees 
Society has published no literary text since 1891; the 
Camden series has since its adoption by the Royal His- ° 
torical Society been turned over entirely to historical mate- 
rial; and A. W. Ward’s edition of Byrom’s poems has been 
the only literary work published by the Chetham Society 
since 1873. These facts explain at once the great increase 
in the number of efficient and long-lived literary societies 
that sprang up during the latter half of the nineteenth cen- 


NINETEENTH CENTURY BOOK CLUBS 133 


tury, and the extreme paucity of literary material among 
the publications of special societies in other fields, and even 
of the once receptive general publishing societies. What 
has been accomplished, then, since 1850 or thereabouts, for 
literary study by societies outside the field of literary pub- 
lication may be dismissed very briefly, and without special 
consideration whether the nature of their activities should 
rank these bodies as book clubs or printing societies. 

Of these later societies, the first both in point of pri- 
ority of establishment and of the value of its output for 
students of English literature is the Folk-Lore Society, 
founded in 1878 chiefly through the efforts of W. J. 
Thoms, a worker in the earlier Shakespeare Society, the 
projector of Notes and Queries, and the inventor of the 
term ‘‘folk-lore.’’ The society was organized for the ‘‘ pres- 
ervation and publication of popular traditions, legendary 
ballads, local proverbial sayings, superstitions, and old 
customs.’’** The program of the body was large, but its 
achievement has been quite equal to its declared purposes. 
The success of its work was, in fact, assured from the begin- 
ning by the quality of the scholarship which it represented : 
among the first members of the council were Andrew Lang, 
EK. B. Tylor, W. J. Thoms, Max Miiller, and Frederic 
Ouvry; and the English scholars-who have contributed to 
the publications of the organization have included, in 
addition to these, Fleay, Havelock Ellis, York Powell, 
Alfred Nutt, Joseph Jacobs, Laurence Gomme, Napier, and 
Skeat. The Folk-Lore Record was the society’s first organ, 
five volumes of which were issued from 1878 to 1882. 
This was followed by the Folk-Lore Journal, of which seven 
volumes appeared to 1889. In turn this was incorporated 
with the Archaeological Review under the title Folk-Lore, 
the present mouth-piece of the society. In these three 


78 Folk-Lore Record, I, Preface, 1878. 


134 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


periodicals is to be found much literary material, including 
illumination of many crucial passages in the light of the 
society ’s special researches, and much matter which, if not 
strictly literary in itself, constitutes one of the most useful 
adjuncts to literary study, such as charms, mumming, prov- 
erbs, local rimes, place names, folk-tales, and a hundred 
related subjects. Besides its periodical, the Folk-Lore 
Society has published a number of separate treatises, in- 
eluding Aubrey’s Remaines of Gentilisme and Judaisme, 
from the manuscript, Alfred Nutt’s Studtes on the Legend 
of the Holy Grail, and many volumes of local folk-lore, 
including a series of County Folk-Lore which has com- 
prised so far five volumes. From this brief record it is 
apparent that the Folk-Lore Society has been, both in the 
magnitude and the intrinsic worth of its work, of the 
greatest importance in the literary field; indeed, it might 
not be too much to say that it has been the most continu- 
ously valuable of all the non-literary societies. 

Two bibliographical societies have issued works of marked 
utility in our province, the Edinburgh Bibliographical 
Society, founded in 1880 as a private club devoted chiefly 
to local interests,*® and the Bibliographical Society, founded 
in London in 1892. For the Edinburgh Bibliographical 
Society William Macmath issued a Bibliography of Scottish 
popular Ballads in Manuscript, James Cameron a Bibliog- 
raphy of Scottish theatrical Interature, R. A. S. Macfie a 
Bibliography of Fletcher of Saltoun, and J. P. Edmonds 
Elegies and other Tracts issued on the Death of Henry, 
Prince of Wales, 1612. Under the auspices of the later 
Bibliographical Society have appeared W. W. Greg’s List 
of English Plays written before 1643 and printed before 
1700, and his Inst of Masques, Pageants, &c, a supplement 

79 Charles Sandford Terry, Catalogue of the Publications of 


Scottish historical and kindred Clubs and Societies, 1780-1908, 1909; 
66. 


NINETEENTH CENTURY BOOK CLUBS 135 


to the previous volume. The 7ransactions of this body con- 
tain also many items of interest. Both of these societies 
have issued a number of longer and shorter works on the 
history of printing, the book trade, and kindred subjects 
of much potential value to students of English literature. 

A number of amateur and learned bodies of less general 
importance have printed from time to time within recent 
years texts and monographs of literary interest. Among 
these may be mentioned the Royal Historical Society, 
organized in 1868, the moving spirit of which was the Rev. 
Charles Rogers. In accordance with its announced purpose 
of pursuing some of the “‘less explored paths’’ of history, 
it published in its first two volumes of Transactions the 
Poems of Sir Robert Aytoun, and the Poetical Remains of 
King James the First of Scotland. To the ninth and tenth 
volumes of the Transactions the Rev. F. G. Fleay contrib- 
uted two valuable papers, On the Actor Insts and On the 
History of the Theatres in London, both covering the period 
preceding the Commonwealth. In the third and fifth 
volumes of the third series of Transactions C. H. Firth pub- 
lished his Ballad History of the Reigns of the later Tudors, 
and Ballad History of the Reign of James I. Rogers 
established in London in the same year as the Royal His- 
torical Society the Grampian Club ‘‘for the editing and 
printing of works illustrative of Scottish literary history 
and antiquities.’’? The publications of this club included 
Boswelliana, the commonplace book of James Boswell, and 
three genealogical works by Rogers, Genealogical Memoirs 
of the Family of Sir Walter Scott, Genealogical Memoirs of 
John Knox and of the Family of Knox, and the Book of 
Robert Burns, three volumes of biography, family history, 
and memoirs. The club has published nothing further 
since 1891. 

In 1877 two book clubs were established in Scotland, the 


136 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


first the Scottish Literary Club, founded by Thomas G. 
Stevenson,*? and the other The New Club, formed in 
Paisley, which republished Jamieson’s Etymological Diction- 
ary of the Scottish Language in four volumes from 1879 to 
1882, with a supplement in 1887. It published also the 
Buke of the Howlat and the Black Book of Paisley and 
' other Manuscripts of the Scotichronicon. 

As types of societies of casual significance for our pur- 
poses, cursory mention of a few of the most generally known 
may close a chapter which has already descended danger- 
ously near to mere enumeration. The Aungervyle Club, 
established in Edinburgh in 1881, was probably something 
in the nature of a proprietary name. In its four series of 
reprints, which appeared from 1881 to 1888, are included 
a number of short and curious poetical fragments and mis- 
cellaneous pieces of small intrinsic value. The Oxford 
Historical Society should be mentioned for the fact that 
although it has done little for essentially literary scholar- 
ship, its editions of The Infe and Times of Anthony Wood 
and of Hearne’s Remarks and Collections, together with 
its contributions to correlated subjects, such as print- 
ing, book collections, and the early history of the Univer- 
sity, have provided very useful materials for the literary 
investigator. The Scottish History Society has published 
in its miscellanies a few monographs upon figures of at 
most secondary literary importance, including James VI, 
Maitland of Lethington, and Gilbert Burnet. The Viking 
Club, founded in 1892 as the Orkney, Shetland, and 
Northern Society, has printed thoroughly useful saga and 
folk-lore material, and in 1912 published a translation of 
Stjerna’s essays upon Beowulf. The Royal Philosophical 
Society of Glasgow in 1902, one hundred years after the 
date of its foundation, instituted a Historical and Philo- 


81 Post., 169. 


NINETEENTH CENTURY BOOK CLUBS 187 


logical Section ; since then there have appeared in the T'rans- 
actions of the society a number of papers by F. J. Amours, 
George Neilson, and other Scottish specialists, on topics in 
Middle English and Middle Scots literature. 

These records, then, mechanical and formal as by their 
nature they must be, serve to show what our modern 
scholarship owes to a day when literary societies had no 
separate existence, and to a tradition which regarded litera- 
ture as the handmaid of many related studies. When the 
literary societies themselves entered the field, the tendency 
was for the societies of general aims, or of special aims in 
other provinces of learning, to eschew literary studies, so 
that the history of the influence of such societies upon 
English scholarship is, as it has already been pointed out, 
one of progressive decline in importance and interest. 


CHAPTER VI 


PHILOLOGICAL AND TEXT SOCIETIES 


The history of English societies for literary scholarship 
divides itself into two definitely marked periods. The first 
of these was contemporary with the effervescence of pub- 
lishing society activities in the second quarter of the nine- 
teenth century, apparently influenced by the success of 
the small and exclusive book clubs. The second period 
opened with Frederic J. Furnivall’s establishment of the 
Early English Text Society in 1864, when a wholly new 
scholarly tradition, derived in large part from Germany, 
not only gave societies once more an excuse for existing, but 
made them indispensable as an agency for the effective 
realization of the rapidly expanding aims of contemporary 
scholarship. 

The Royal Society of Literature of the United Kingdom 
was the only society of the nineteenth century whose posi- 
tion as a chartered society under royal patronage admitted 
it to the dignity shared by the Royal Society, the Society 
of Antiquaries, and other learned establishments of their 
rank. It was also the first important society organized 
definitely for the purpose of literary study; although, as we 
shall see, its aims as defined by its charter were rather mis- 
cellaneous, and so broad in their scope that it might have 
been foreseen that the society could not realize a number 
of its stated objects. In addition, the circumstances of its 
establishment made its activities, at least during its early 
period, more pretentious than serious; and it was at first 
burdened, as all such royal establishments must be to 
some extent, by a number of aristocratic figureheads. The 
first officers and council of the society were, in fact, men of 

138 


PHILOLOGICAL AND TEXT SOCIETIES 139 


title and ecclesiastical dignitaries, with not a single scholar 
of first rate literary attainments among them. Indeed, the 
entire constituent membership of the society at that time 
was distinguished by the almost total absence of names of 
scholarly prominence. Finally, the extension of the soci- 
ety’s activities to the whole domain of literature, both Eng- 
lish and foreign, resulted in the distraction of its attention 
from the revival of interest in Anglo-Saxon, which was at 
the moment of the society’s foundation advancing rapidly 
in England, and in the concentration of much of its effort 
upon classical and oriental studies, especially Egyptology. 
As a significant influence upon English literary scholar- 
ship, therefore, the society which, from its name, should 
have been one of its most active organized forces, was in 
reality surpassed in activity and importance by a score of 
unsubsidized and unpatronized volunteer societies. The 
society remains to-day, in fact, less a really literary society 
than a dilettante organization for every kind of polite 
purpose. 

This society was planned as early as 1820; the first gen- 
eral meeting was held in 1823, and its charter was granted 
in 1825.1. Its declared objects, which promised much to 
English scholarship, were to promote the publication of 
valuable manuscripts, and to encourage the search for such 
materials, ‘‘to promote the publication of works of great 
intrinsic value, but not of so popular a character as to 
induce the risk of private expense,’’? ‘‘to read at its public 

1 Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature of the United 
Kingdom, v. I, pt. I, London, 1827; Advertisement. 

2 One of the most interesting proposals to endow literary labor, and 
possibly the first fully developed scheme of the sort, is to be found in 
the plans of the Society for the Establishment of a Literary Fund, 
which outlined its work in its Claims of Literature, London, 1802; 
93-163. The society actually distributed upwards of sixteen hundred 


pounds from the time of its establishment in 1790 to 1802. The 
present income of the fund is about four thousand pounds. 


140 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


meetings papers upon subjects of general literature,’’ ‘‘to 
adjudge honorary rewards to persons who shall have ren- 
dered any eminent service to literature, or produced any 
work highly distinguished for learning or genius; provided 
always, that such work contain nothing hostile to religion 
or morality,’’ and ‘‘to elect, as honorary associates, persons 
eminent for the pursuit of literature; and from these to 
select Associates upon the Royal Foundation, or upon the 
Foundation of the Society, as circumstances may admit.’” 

The last of the society’s stated objects was provided for 
by an appropriation from the Privy Purse of one thousand 
guineas annually, to be divided between the ten ‘‘ Royal 
Associates’? named by the society; and in emulation of the 
monarch’s patronage of letters, the society itself elected ten 
‘Honorary Associates,’? who were to receive the same 
emolument.* The Royal Associates were to be ‘‘persons of 
eminent learning, and authors of some distinguished work 
of literature.’’ In addition, the society was empowered to 
award annually two Royal Medals to the writers of remark- 
able works. The appropriations for the Royal Associates 
and the Royal Medals, however, were discontinued after 
the death of George IV. In the period during which both 
were granted, the Royal Associates had included Coleridge 
and Malthus, and the Honorary Associates Crabbe and 
Southey. Among the recipients of the medals were Mit- 
ford, Dugald Stewart, Scott, Southey, Crabbe, Washington 
Irving, and Hallam.® 

The further activities of the Royal Society of Literature 
have not placed English scholarship under a very great debt. 
Its province has at one time or another included the whole 
of classical and oriental antiquity, British archaeology, 
political economy, numismatics, history, comparative reli- 

3 Transactions, v. I, pt. I, vii—viii, 1-2. 

4 Ibid., xiv. 


5 Biographia Britannica Literaria, II, [Advertisement] iii-—iv. 


PHILOLOGICAL AND TEXT SOCIETIES 141 


gion, biblical criticism, comparative philology, and geog- 
raphy. Its chief promise of special aid to English letters 
was its effort to publish a complete Biographia Britannica 
Literaria, which was undertaken under the editorship of 
Thomas Wright in 1842, and the expenses of which were 
defrayed from a bequest of five thousand pounds by the 
Rev. George Richards. This work, however, was never 
earried beyond the second volume, published in 1846, which 
brought the undertaking only through the Anglo-Norman 
period. In addition to this publication the society issued in 
1876 a valuable autotype reproduction of the manuscript 
Common-Place Book of John Milton, and in 1897 a fac- 
simile of the Princess Elizabeth’s prose translation of 
Margaret of Navarre’s Mirror of the Sinful Soul. Latterly 
the society has given two series of popular lectures, to 
commemorate the five hundredth anniversary of Chaucer’s 
death, in 1900, and the tercentenary of Milton’s birth in 
1908. Our final judgment of the society’s work, however, 
must be that in both bulk and quality it suffers by compari- 
son with that of private societies of more serious and con- 
centrated aims. 

The first society to limit its field to publications illustra- 
tive of the history of English literature was the Perey 
Society. This society was founded in 1840, as were the 
Shakespeare and the Parker Societies, and curiously 
enough, it was dissolved in the very year in which these two 
societies ceased publication. The question of priority 
might be disputed between the Perey Society and the 
Shakespeare Society, but it seems to be generally accepted 
that to the Percy belongs the distinction of having been the 
first society to devote itself exclusively to the printing of 
English texts. In point of value, however, the publica- 
tions of the Perey Society are much less noteworthy than 
those of the Shakespeare Society, for the former are by 


6 Ibid., II, iv. 


142 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


comparison slight, fragmentary, and generally unimposing. 
The leading workers in both societies were in the main the 
same, including Thomas Wright, Halliwell, Dyce, and Col- 
lier, and less importantly, Rimbault, Cunningham, and 
Fairholt. The two societies were, however, conducted on 
quite different principles. The Percy Society was by the 
nature of its publications more prolific, averaging dur- 
ing its early period one issue a month; the Shakespeare 
Society, on the other hand, printed works not merely of 
high value in the aggregate, but almost without exception 
of the greatest importance each in itself. A point of 
further difference lies in the fact that the Percy Society, 
like the earlier general publishing societies, was organized 
merely for the purposes of publication; the Shakespeare 
Society, on the other hand, held meetings at which scholarly 
questions were discussed and critical and historical papers 
read, and the most valuable of these were published from 
time to time as the Shakespeare Society’s Papers. These 
scholarly meetings, which gave the Shakespeare Society a 
greater distinction as a veritable learned society, were 
thought to constitute one of its most important functions. 

The Perey Society issued during the thirteen years of its 
life ninety-four numbers of its publications, with two others 
that were withdrawn from general circulation. These 
issues were in the form of thin unbound volumes; for the 
frequency of their appearance and the relatively small 
income derived from the modest subscription of only a 
pound yearly from five hundred members prevented the 
publications from showing much bookish pretentiousness. 
The fact that the society was named after the erstwhile 
Bishop of Dromore implies something as to the nature of 
the works which it published. Twenty-three of the num- 
bers were made up of popular ballads, songs, carols, and 
nursery rimes; another twenty-three included tracts, 
pamphlets, and curious pieces illustrative of manners, tra- 


PHILOLOGICAL AND TEXT SOCIETIES 143 


ditions, and customs; fourteen of the numbers were re- 
prints of miscellaneous verse, and nine of Middle English 
and Scots poetry, including Hawes’s Pastime of Pleasure, 
selections from lLydgate’s minor poems, and Thomas 
Wright’s new text of the Canterbury Tales; five numbers 
were interludes and dramatic dialogues, and five medieval 
tales and romances. In addition to these there first ap- 
peared in the Perey publications Massinger’s Believe as 
you Last,” Henry Porter’s Two Angry Women of Abing- 
don, Wotton’s poems, and Barnfield’s Affectionate Shep- 
herd. The remaining volumes comprised collections of 
proverbs and conceits, scriptural paraphrases, devotional 
poetry, Lord Mayors’ pageants, and other material. 

The Perey Society’s product is not to be scorned because 
its bulk seems on the surface to be more imposing than its 
quality. Since in these productions the objects of the body 
were very effectively realized, it would be vain to wish that 
the society’s aims had been larger or better directed. That 
the reading public seemed to feel, however, that the Perey 
Society had distinguished itself for industry rather than 
solid accomplishment is apparently to be inferred from a 
note in the Athenaeum in 1855, in reference to the pros- 
pective organization of the Warton Club, which was formed 
to succeed the Perey Society: ‘‘Certainly it will be a relief 
to book-buyers to be spared the infliction of another series 
so long as that of the Percy Society. Several smaller series 

7In the main, the history of the early societies is one of amicable 
relations one with another. Over Croker’s edition of this play, how- 
ever, developed a personal quarrel between Croker and Collier in 
which the council of the Percy Society took a part. The dispute 
originated in a paper, On Massinger’s Believe as you List (The 
Shakespeare Society’s Papers, IV, 133-9, 1849), which found a 


reply in Croker’s anonymous Remarks on an Article in the Papers 
of the Shakespeare Society [1849]. 


144 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


would be better than one which is altogether indefinite and 
interminable.’’§ 

The Shakespeare Society dated its existence from 1840.° 
The prospectus of the society stated its chief object to be 
‘‘the publication or republication of works connected with 
and illustrative of the plays of Shakespeare and his con- 
temporaries; and of the rise and progress of the English 


8 Athenaeum, May 26, 1855; 609. 

9 The Shakespeare Society of general fame was not the first of its 
name, or the first, in all probability, to attempt some tangible 
memorial to Shakspere. As early as 1770, a society of the name 
existed in Edinburgh, the objects of which were apparently in the 
main—and like those of the majority of the Scotch clubs of the time— 
convivial (Notes and Queries, 2nd Series, IV, 185-6). The first 
Shakespeare Society to leave traces of any serious interest in the 
works of its nominal patron and to issue a publication was probably 
the Sheffield Shakespeare Club, founded in 1819 as a protest against 
the fulminations of a local cleric upon the immorality of theatre- 
going (Sheffield Shakespeare Club, Proceedings from its commence- 
ment in 1819, to January 1829. Sheffield, 1829; v). This club 
““bespoke’’ a play annually, and held dinners in honor of its bard. 
Its meetings, judging from the reports of them, were of no more 
impressive dignity than those of the Roxburghe Club immortalized 
by Haslewood, or the gathering of the Bannatyne Club recorded by 
Scott, as a wind-up to which Lord Eldin ‘‘had a bad fall on the 
staircase,’’ and Scott himself ‘‘did not get to his carriage without 
a stumble neither.’’ (Familiar letters of Sir Walter Scott, 1894; 
II, 178). The reports of the dinners of the Sheffield Club are, in 
short, a record of endless toasts, rather undiscriminating praise of the 
object of their admiration, and small talk upon everything from 
music to politics. In a word, none of the reminiscences of the 
Sheffield Shakespeare Club could convince us that it had any project 
for systematic or serious study of Shakspere. There was also 
founded an Edinburgh Shakespeare Club in 1820; it must, however, 
be taken even less seriously than the Sheffield body, for its objects 
are stated to have been ‘‘the cultivation of literary pursuits, and the 
promotion of sociality and friendship among the members (Rules 
and Regulations of the Edinburgh Shakespeare Club and Library, 
Edinburgh, 1826). Its title was certainly not intended to suggest 
a particularly serious attention to any aspect of literary study. 


PHILOLOGICAL AND TEXT SOCIETIES 145 


stage and English dramatic poetry, prior to the suppres- 
sion of theatrical performances in 1647.’’ The publications 
of the society were also to include old plays and tracts, and 
of the latter especially those which shed light upon Eliza- 
bethan stage history. The organization was admittedly 
modeled after the Camden and Percy Societies: its adminis- 
tration was vested in an elective council of twenty-one 
members; its dues were only one pound annually; and its 
publications were to be inexpensive, and for that reason 
more numerous than would have been the case if the form 
and character of the book club publications had been fol- 
lowed. A significant provision of the prospectus was that 
members of the society should be ‘‘invited to contribute 
works for publication.’’?° 

The first council of the Shakespeare Society included 
Thomas Amyot, Campbell, Collier, C. W. Dilke, Dyce, Halli- 
well, Knight, Macready, Sir Frederic Madden, Milman, 
and Thomas Wright. Much of the heaviest executive work 
was carried on by Collier, the first director, and throughout 
its history altogether the most industrious member of the 
society. Halliwell and Collier found an outlet in this body 
for great energies and intense, though possibly unneces- 
sarily spectacular, scholarly application. It must be ad- 
mitted, indeed, that whatever the shortcomings of these two 
students were, it was through their efforts particularly 
that the earlier Shakesperean study of the age secured its 
impetus and influence. 

The Shakespeare Society led an active existence until the 
year 1851, publishing in this time forty-six volumes; after 
the society was practically defunct, it issued its final two 
volumes, which had been previously in preparation, in 1852 
and 1853. One volume which the society had in hand at 
the time of its dissolution was never published; this was 


10 ‘Tt is acknowledged on all hands’’ ... [ Prospectus, 1840]. 
11 


146 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


Peter Cunningham’s selections from Oldys’s notes to Lang- 
baine’s English Dramatick Poets. 

The publications of the Shakespeare Society, it must be 
remembered, contained material which was then generally 
unfamiliar. For example, the treatises on the stage by Gos- 
son, Heywood, and Northbrooke, well known as they are to 
us, were first made popular property through their publica- 
tion by this society. Their reprints of source plays, pre- 
Shaksperean plays, Heywood’s dramatic works, mystery 
eycles, and kindred material, though more or less faulty in 
the eyes of modern scholarship, must be looked upon as 
opening up to the reading public a field which had been 
heretofore practically closed. In addition to its reprints, 
the society published four volumes of its Papers, selected 
from those presented at its meetings. In these volumes is 
to be found a great deal of historical, interpretative, and 
illustrative criticism which is less valuable now than it 
once was merely because it has been absorbed into the tra- 
ditions of scholarship. 

It is unfortunate that much of what might have been 
the most noteworthy of Collier’s labors for the society 
forms to-day part of the ground upon which his veracity has 
been impugned. There can scarcely be a doubt that the sus- 
picion which had already begun to attach itself to Collier’s 
work in the fifties was largely responsible for the decline of 
the Shakespeare Society’s activity and the failure of 
popular support for it. It must also be apparent that 

11JTt is difficult to find printed evidence of the suspicions of 
Collier’s dishonesty at so early a date, for the public outcry against 
him did not begin until after the publication of his Notes and 
Emendations to the Text of Shakespeare’s Plays in 1852, and the 
law of libel was then as now probably sufficiently deterrent to prevent 
the publication of suspicions unbacked by evidence; but in T. Crofton 
Croker’s Remarks on an Article inserted in the Papers of the Shake- 
speare Society [1849] there are undoubted intimations that by this 


time Collier’s discoveries were beginning to be seriously called into 
question (op. cit., 8, 9, 12). 


PHILOLOGICAL AND TEXT SOCIETIES 147 


Halliwell, Knight, and Dyce, who were among the first 
scholars of the time to express their skepticism as to the 
authenticity, if not the honesty, of Collier’s emendations to 
Shakspere, must have been impressed by the tone and the 
evidential value of the criticism which greeted Collier’s 
letters to the Athenaeum in 1852;)? and with faith in the 
society’s most strenuous leader so sadly shattered, and the 
genuineness of a handful of the society’s publications 
called into open question, it was of course impossible that 
the remaining workers in the society should continue to 
appeal to public confidence as they had done for eleven 
years. It is true that the society’s generous scale of pub- 
lication in its earlier years had impoverished its resources 
to some extent, for it was necessary for the council to ex- 
plain upon this ground the appearance of only two volumes 
for the year 1851;7° but this does not diminish the impor- 
tance of the fact that the publications of the society ceased 
to appear in the year in which the Collier controversy 
arose, only two volumes, already in preparation, remain- 
ing to be issued in the following two years. 

The works edited by Collier for the Shakespeare Society 
which had been suspected are those which contain docu- 
ments from Dulwich College now proved to have been 
doctored by Collier; these were the Memoirs of Edward 
Alleyn, The Alleyn Papers, and the Diary of Philip Hen- 
slowe.4* The results of Collier’s misconduct are of course 
more far-reaching than their effect upon the value of 

12 For an account of the history of Collier’s critical forgeries and 
the ensuing controversies see Notes on the Life of John Payne 
Collier by Henry B. Wheatley, 1884; 30-38, 47-8, 51-67. 

13 Athenaeum, May 1, 1852; 490. 

14The extent of Collier’s forgeries is discussed in George F. 
Warner’s Catalogue of the Dulwich Manuscripts, and further in- 


vestigation of the treatment of Henslowe’s diary is to be found in 
Mr. W. W. Greg’s new edition of the document. 


148 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


works which are now known to be unreliable, for all that he 
produced—including almost half of the Shakespeare Soci- 
ety’s publications—must clearly be affected by some degree 
of uncertainty as to its complete authenticity and accuracy. 

The oldest of the societies whose record has been one 
of unbroken and unterminated service to English scholar- 
ship is the Philological Society, organized in 1842.7%° The 
society’s revised rules state that it was formed ‘‘for the 
investigation of the structure, the affinities, and the his- 
tory of languages; and the philological illustration of the 
classical writers of Greece and Rome;’’ the special refer- 
ence to the domain of classical philology, however, was by 
resolution omitted in 1878. The constituent members of 
the society numbered upwards of two hundred, among 
whom the most conspicuous in English studies were Bos- 
worth, Garnett, Hallam, Kemble, Thorpe, and Trench. In 
the beginning, however, none of these distinguished scholars 
was as active as two others probably less accomplished, 
Edwin Guest and Hensleigh Wedgwood, both of whom con- 
tributed numerous papers on syntax and special etymolo- 
gies to the Proceedings and the later Transactions. These 
records of the meetings of the society contained from its 
early years useful articles on English dialects, Anglo- 
Saxon and Middle English grammar, place, animal, and 
plant names, and etymologies; interest in the English field, 
which was at first overshadowed by that in classical philol- 
ogy and anomalous tongues, increasing until it became the 
first concern of the organization. 

15 There were without question other philological societies of similar 
aims in active organization before this date; but although some of 
them were known to the members of the Philological Society, their 
records have apparently disappeared. A sketch of the history of a 
single one, the Etymological Society at Cambridge, which published 
some of its papers—in part on English subjects—in the short lived 


Philological Museum, may be found in the Proceedings of the 
Philological Society, V, 183-42 (1854). 


PHILOLOGICAL AND TEXT SOCIETIES 149 


The last and the present generation of English scholars 
began to enter the society soon after its foundation, Furni- 
vall, Wheatley, Morris, Ellis, and Sweet beginning their 
contributions in the sixties, and Murray and Skeat in the 
following decade. The infusion of new blood, which 
brought with it enthusiasms and not unrealizable dreams, 
turned the society eventually into the channels of activity 
which have brought it its greatest usefulness and distinc- 
tion: textual publication, spelling reform, and most impor- 
tantly, the stupendous project for an historical English 
dictionary. 

The publication of the dictionary was first proposed by 
Richard Chenevix Trench, an English scholar of consider- 
able note, in 1857, and was urged in two papers read before 
the society in 1858, On some Deficiencies in our English 
Dictionaries. The principal points in these two papers 
were those which determined the attitude of the society 
upon the subject of a dictionary from this time on: that a 
dictionary should be complete, and should exercise no 
principle of exclusion for the purpose of establishing a 
puristic standard, or upon grounds of obsoleteness, foreign- 
ism, or localism; and that it should treat extensively etymo- 
logical history and relationships. Trench’s original pro- 
posal, however, contemplated only a supplement to the 
dictionaries of Johnson and Richardson, and when work 
was undertaken by the society, it was for that purpose. But 
after an extended analysis, by over one hundred collectors, 
of the most typical materials for further etymological 
studies, it was thought that the magnitude of the work upon 
which the society found itself actually embarked called for 
a completely new lexicon upon scientific principles. To 
this end, two committees were appointed, one Literary and 
Historical, composed of Trench, Furnivall, and Herbert 
Coleridge, and the other Etymological, including Hensleigh 


150 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


Wedgwood and Prof. Henry Malden, a classical scholar.*® 
The system of work upon the dictionary was to be volun- 
teer codperation, especially for the work of collecting 
illustrative quotations. There were to be readers of exam- 
ples of English from all periods subsequent to the decline 
of Anglo-Saxon, and sub-editors for the arrangement of the 
materials alphabetically and historically. For this purpose 
lengthy and specific rules for the guidance of collectors 
were drawn up, and the arrangement of the dictionary 
was outlined in the Canones Lexicographici in 1860. As 
the dictionary was at first planned, it was to consist of 
three parts: a main non-technical section, a section of 
technical and scientific terms and proper names, and an 
etymological appendix. This plan was, however, ultimately 
abandoned. After 1861, when Coleridge died, Furnivall 
carried much of the work of collection and arrangement 
upon his own shoulders. But in 1876, when he had 
a few publishing societies upon his hands (and the first 
impulse to his revival of the publishing society plan came 
from his wish to make available in print the materials for 
the Middle English portion of the dictionary), he proposed 
placing the work under the supervision of a special editor.1" 
Dr. J. A. H. Murray was appointed to this position in 1878. 
In 1879 Murray announced?® that contracts with the 
Delegates of the Clarendon Press had been signed early in 
that year, and gave at the same time a highly interesting 
picture of the extended and careful preparations for the 
reception, classification, and digestion of the raw material, 
and of the varied and complicated problems which pre- 
sented themselves when the undertaking was actually under 
16 Proposal for the Publication of a new English Dictionary by 
the Philological Society, 1859; 1-2. 
17 Frederick James Furnivall, a Volume of personal Record, 1911; 


xliv. 
18 Transactions of the Philological Society, 1877-8-9; 567-86. 


PHILOLOGICAL AND TEXT SOCIETIES 151 


way. The society in the meantime had been incorporated 
for the purposes of the contract. The contract itself excited 
some little comment among the members of the society, 
Furnivall and Sweet objecting strenuously to the small 
percentage of the profits of the enterprise which was to fall 
to the society; but it was accepted by the society in con- 
sideration of the large advance which the Press was re- 
quired to make for initial expenses, and of the difficulty 
which the society had already had in getting any publisher 
to undertake a work of the magnitude they wished.?® As 
it was, the Clarendon Press contracted for a dictionary of 
between six and seven thousand pages, limiting consider- 
ably the scope of the etymological portion as it had been 
originally planned; and the society, therefore, reserved the 
right to publish after the completion of this first dictionary 
an expanded dictionary of about ten volumes of sixteen 
hundred pages each. The contract stipulated that three 
years should be spent upon the accumulation and arrange- 
ment of material, and that the dictionary should be 
completed within ten years after the actual beginning of 
publication. 

In 1879, then, the real work of the editor was begun; but 
it was found immediately that there were large hiatuses 
in the material already collected, and for this reason re- 
newed appeals were made for readers. When it was con- 
sidered that the preliminary work for the first parts was 
completed, the apparatus consisted of over three million 
quotations from five thousand authors, which had been 
collected by thirteen hundred readers. The sub-editors 
who had given gratuitous service to the project then num- 
bered thirty.2° The delays in the progress of the work, 

19 IJbid., App., xv—xvill. A copy of the contract itself is to be 
found in App., xlix—lix. 

204 New English Dictionary on Historical Principles founded 


mainly on the Materials collected by the Philological Society, I, 
v-vii, 1888. 


152 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


however, were much greater than any of the workers con- 
cerned had anticipated; for the general magnitude of the. 
labor, and the care necessary in completing information 
and settling points in word history, had occasioned serious 
stoppages in the machinery.” The first copy was finally 
sent to the press in 1882, the first part was issued in 1884, 
and the first volume was completed in 1888. The work 
has to-day progressed almost through the ninth volume, 
with a single volume necessary to complete it. In spite of 
the fact that it has not been constructed upon the scale 
which the society at first intended, it represents in extent 
and convenience of arrangement an achievement quite un- 
paralleled. Indeed, it is as far in advance of the other two 
great national dictionaries, Littré’s and Grimm’s, as these 
are superior to their predecessors. 

It was through the recognition of the need of more 
Middle English texts in the compilation of the dictionary 
that Furnivall first secured the Philological Society’s ap- 
proval of a plan for the publication of desirable English 
texts. In this way were issued in 1862 Furnivall’s Early 
English Poems and Inves of Saints, and Morris’s edition 
of the Liber Cure Cocorum, in 1863 Morris’s edition of 
Richard Rolle of Hampole’s Pricke of Conscience, and in 
1864 a fourteenth century Castel of Loue, translated from 
Grosseteste, edited by R. F. Weymouth. The society’s lack 
of funds, however, prevented its continuing such work,?? 
and the Early English Text Society was accordingly 
organized by Furnivall in 1864 to carry on the under- 
taking. 

In 1869 Danby P. Fry, one of the members of the Philo- 
logical Society, endeavored to induce the society to institute 
some methods of reform in English orthography. A com- 


21 Transactions of the Philological Society, 1882-4, 508 sq. 
22 Transactions of the Philological Society, 1873-4, 236. 


PHILOLOGICAL AND TEXT SOCIETIES 153 


mittee was appointed, consisting of Ellis, Morris, Joseph 
Payne, Russell Martineau, Fry, and later Wheatley and 
Murray, to report upon the question, but the members 
were unable to agree upon a course of action.*®> After the 
committee was dissolved, Fry and Ellis submitted two pro- 
posals, embodying their individual ideas of the direction and 
extent of revision,** but the matter soon ceased to engage 
the serious attention of the members. After attempts at 
spelling reform in America had brought the matter once 
more before the Philological Society’s notice, Dr. Murray 
made the question one of the points of his presidential ad- 
dress in 1880.*° He did not favor a wholesale amendment, 
for, as he put the matter in his own words, ‘‘My own opin- 
ion is that at present and for a long time to come, until 
indeed the general principles of phonology are understood 
by men of education, no complete or systematic scheme of 
spelling reform has the least chance of being adopted in 
this country, and I do not think that the promulgation or 
advocacy of such bears any practical fruit.’’ He did, how- 
ever, favor action on the part of the society, ‘‘representing 
the English scholarship of the country,’’ to the end of 
issuing a list of amended spellings, the alterations in which 
should be confined to ‘‘the omission of such letters as are 
both unphonetiec and unhistoric, and for which no so-called 
etymological plea ‘can be submitted.’’ Following these 
recommendations, Henry Sweet issued as a basis for dis- 
cussion some notes upon suggested changes,”* and after two 
meetings of debate on the subject, the society printed its 
Partial Corections of English Spellings aproovd by the 
Philological Society.27 Although from this time on, many 

23 Transactions of the Philological Society, 1870-72, 19. 

24 Ibid., 17-88, 89-118. 

25 Transactions of the Philological Society, 1880-1; 139-155. 

26 Ibid., App., *65—-*89. 

27 Ibid., Supplement, 1-38. 


154 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


individual members used the corrected spellings, the posi- 
tion which the society was courageous and confident enough 
to take seemed to have very little influence upon English 
usage generally. The matter slept, therefore, until Henry 
Bradley, in his presidential address in 1892,?° gave it as his 
opinion that the whole project is really not as simple as 
most of his colleagues assumed, that after all the older 
spellings do convey somewhat adequately useful suggestions 
of etymological history, and that this fact, especially in a 
tongue so rich in technical and other special word construc- 
tions, is of more practical significance than most of the re- 
formers seem willing to admit. Since this time the society 
has given no important formal expression of its attitude on 
the still seriously debated question. 

The Philological Society continues to-day as one of the 
most vital forces in English scholarship; and its Trans- 
actions continue to publish much of the highest value in 
literary, but more especially linguistic, study, by the most 
eapable English scholars of our day. When we consider 
that from the Philological Society actually sprang Furni- 
vall’s project for the Early English Text Society, and 
indirectly his other publishing society schemes, and Ellis 
and Skeat’s plan for the English Dialect Society, it must 
be admitted that in the actual extent of its influence, if not 
in the bulk of its published results, this society has been 
the most powerful and fruitful organized aid to English 
scholarship that the last century produced. 

The Aelfric Society, which was founded in 1848, outlined 
in its prospectus a much more modest program than had 
been attempted as yet by any publishing society.?® Its 
plan was to publish ‘‘those Anglo-Saxon literary remains 
which have either not yet been given to the world, or of 


28 Transactions of the Philological Society, 1891-4, 263-6. 
29 **Tt is proposed to establish ...’’ [Prospectus, 1842 ?]. 


PHILOLOGICAL AND TEXT SOCIETIES 155 


which a more correct and convenient edition may be deemed 
desirable.’’ The first class of its proposed publications 
was to include the Anglo-Saxon homilies and lives of saints, 
and the second class the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and 
Alfred’s Bede and Orosius. It was considered that the 
undertaking could be carried to completion in four years, 
and at a cost of about five pounds a member if a hundred 
members were secured. The society actually opened its 
existence, however, with less than half that number.*® On 
the first membership list appeared the names of Bosworth, 
Kemble, Madden, Thorpe, and R. M. White; the remaining 
members included a generous proportion of clergymen, 
schoolmasters, and amateur antiquaries. It can be seen, 
therefore, that the society quite failed to excite anything 
like a general interest in its plans. 

The publications of the Aelfric Society were issued in 
parts, with translations of the texts. All of its program 
that was completed was Thorpe’s Homilies of the Anglo- 
Saxon Church, in ten parts, 1843-6, Kemble’s Poetry of the 
Codex Vercellensis, in two parts, 1844-56, and The Anglo- 
Saxon Dialogues of Solomon and Saturnus and Adrian and 
Ritheus, in three parts, 1845-6. Upon the issuance of the 
second part of the Vercelli Book in 1856, the society was 
dissolved.** 

No new literary club was organized in England for an- 
other eleven years, when the Warton Club appeared in 
1854. Its first volume was issued in the following year. 
This club was designed to succeed the Percy Society, dis- 
continued in the preceding year, although it was to have 
only two hundred members, as against the Percy’s five 
hundred. A curious fact in relation to this body is that 
its existence was planned to terminate at the end of six 

30 Aelfric Society for the Illustration of English History and 
Philology [Announcement, 1843]. 

31H, G. Bohn, Appendix to Lowndes’ Bibliographer’s Manual, 67. 


156 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


years, an assurance that was evidently intended to antici- 
pate objections to a series of publications of undetermined 
length and inclusiveness. Thomas Wright and Halliwell 
appear again as the promotors of the new society, which 
was to be administered in a novel and in some respects ob- 
jectionable manner. It was, as the Athenaeum reviewed 
the scheme, ‘‘to be entirely under the management of a 
committee of ‘six gentlemen,’ who announce in their pros- 
pectus that they are ‘known for their attainments in this 
branch of literature.’ There are to be no general meetings, 
no president, no treasurer, no secretary, no auditors of 
accounts, none of ‘the forms of a society.’ The ‘six gentle- 
men’ are to be a Permanent Committee, and nobody else is 
to say a word.’’*? The proposed object of the club seems to 
have been ‘‘the reprinting of such rare but well chosen 
tracts by Greene, Nash, Breton, Taylor the Water Poet, &c., 
as afford valuable illustration of manners, or are interest- 
ing in any other point of view.’’*? The club, however, did 
not realize any of these specific purposes; in fact, it did 
not live out its predetermined existence, for with the publi- 
cation of the Anglo-Norman text of Fulke Fitz-Warine, the 
Latin Exercises of Mary Queen of Scots, and two fifteenth 
century miscellany manuscripts, the Warton Club came to 
an end in 1856. 

The foundation of the Early English Text Society in 
1864 marks the beginning of a remarkable revival in liter- 
ary society activity.24 No large or influential English 
society had been founded since the Perey and Shakespeare 

82 Athenaeum, May 26, 1855, 609. 

383 Notes and Queries, 1st Series, V, 238. 

34 A large part of my information as to the Early English Text 
Society has been taken from the annual announcements, especially 
from that for November, 1911. . For further facts, particularly with 


reference to the society’s fiscal organization, I am under obligation 
to W. A. Dalziel, Esquire, the Honorary Secretary. 


PHILOLOGICAL AND TEXT SOCIETIES 157 


Societies in 1840, but a number of efficient organizations, 
many of them the creations of the founder of the Early 
English Text Society, took example from the success of 
this project and lived long and energetic lives. Of the 
private societies for the furtherance of literary scholar- 
ship which had preceded it, none were still in existence 
save the Philological Society, and the field of this society 
was divided with the study of other tongues. The decline 
of the early societies which published English texts is with- 
out doubt to be assigned primarily to the wane of the first 
vogue of the society idea; but it was probably accelerated 
also by the personal scandal which became associated with 
the most prominent of all, the Shakespeare Society. It is 
probably true, in addition, that since the earlier text 
societies had exploited the Elizabethan field fairly thor- 
oughly, there was little reason or incentive as yet for the 
exploration of the provinces of Old and Middle English— 
which had without question failed to appeal to more than a 
narrowly confined interest—until the actual necessity of 
publishing the earlier materials loomed large in the minds 
of scholars. 

As Scott had received the dilettante club idea and con- 
verted it into something more generous and practical, and 
as Halliwell, Collier, and Thomas Wright had dominated, 
with good purpose, and to good ends, the later democratic 
societies, Furnivall revived the scheme, so common in the 
eighteenth century days of publication by subscription, of 
providing a market for a needed series of reprints which 
could not have been supported by the conditions of every- 
day publication, and organized a society upon the plainest 
and simplest business proposition: ‘‘I’ll furnish the books 
if you’ll pay for them.’’ It may be said of the Early 
English Text Society, as of most of the other societies which 
Furnivall founded, that it was his society from the day of 
its organization to the day of his death. 


158 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


This society, however, even though it was primarily a 
business proposition pure and simple, was not without a 
basis of sentiment, and this Furnivall did all he could to 
foster. Its origin, as has been seen, lay in Furnivall’s 
desire to make accessible the bulk of the unprinted and 
scarce linguistic material which should properly form the 
foundation of the Philological Society’s projected etymo- 
logical dictionary.*® It could scarcely be hoped that the 
class of literary material promised by such a plan could by 
the remotest possibility appeal to anything like a general 
literary taste. The society began in fact with one hundred 
and thirty-seven members, and now after very nearly a 
half-century it numbers scarcely over three hundred. 
There is real cause for remark in the fact that the member- 
ship of a society of such illustrious aims and attainments 
should compare so unfavorably with that of some of the 
earlier publishing societies, which in a few cases exceeded 
a thousand. But the reasons for the marked difference 
seem simple and obvious. In the first place, the objects of 
the Shakespeare and Percy Societies, and in their own 
fields, of the Camden and Parker Societies, after all were 
intended to appeal to a taste that had been under popular 
cultivation for a comparatively long time; but the publi- 
cations of the new society could appeal continuously only 
to scholars of special training. On this point there was 
really little to justify the querulous complaint that Furni- 
vall published in his announcements from year to year, that 
*‘the society’s experience has shown the very small num- 
ber of those inheritors of the speech of Cynewulf, Chaucer, 
and Shakspere, who care two guineas a year for the 
records of that speech.’’ The society’s publications were 
to have, and have had, little to do with Shakspere; most 
Englishmen “‘have a feeling for’’ Chaucer, but not for the 


35 Ante, 150, 152. 


PHILOLOGICAL AND TEXT SOCIETIES 159 


majority of his contemporaries; Cynewulf is a name with- 
out meaning for the great number. If this were all there 
were to be said for or against the project from the stand- 
point of its failure in popular appeal, the plea might not 
be unjustified; but to ask an Englishman, even with a well 
developed respect for his national traditions, to take with 
his Chaucer and Cynewulf reams upon reams of homilies, 
dull metrical romances, interminable didactic poems, saints’ 
lives, cook books, and surgical treatises, was and is un- 
reasonable. The society has received fair support from the 
classes of subscribers whose wants it might be expected to 
fill—trained philologists and institutions; but it has never 
succeeded in its general appeals to readers at large, chiefly 
because these appeals are not grounded in reason. There 
may have been more substance in Furnivall’s character- 
istically direct comparison: ‘‘it is nothing less than a 
scandal that the Hellenic Society should have over a thou- 
sand members, while the Early English Text Society has 
not three hundred.’’ The complaint itself is the best evi- 
dence in the world that for most educated people a dead 
language which has no important traditional culture asso- 
ciated with it is indeed a very dead thing. And whatever 
enters most significantly into the general cultural traditions 
of our day, it is not derived from any intellectual force of 
medieval England or Anglo-Saxon England.*°® 

36 That Furnivall started his project in the face of a really pro- 
found lack of interest in and preparation for ancient English litera- 
ture seems to be attested by the tone of some of the early reviews 
of the society’s publications. For example, the Saturday Review’s 
judgments (November 5, 1864) upon the first two books issued by 
the society: With reference to Furnivall’s Arthur, ‘‘As matters of 
philological study, we are ready to receive texts about King Arthur 
or about any other subject under heaven; but in any other point of 
view, we must confess that we are tired of King Arthur. ... We 


must confess that we do not enter into the apparently prevalent love 
of everything Arthurian for its own sake.’’ And with regard to 


160 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


Another thing which without question affected the suc- 
cess of the Early English Text Society was Furnivall’s 
personality. As strongly endeared as he was to his near 
friends by exceptional personal qualities, he possessed other 
qualities—summed up in the word ‘‘bumptiousness’’ by 
one of the distinguished English scholars of the time who 
could not work in harmony with him—which cost him the 
affection, and even the tolerance, of many men of attain- 
ments who otherwise would probably have been glad to 
aid his projects. His constant bullying, for instance, of 
some of the old Shakespeare Society group, must have pre- 
judiced his undertakings in the public mind and made 
him appear as a rather irritating apostle of scholarly integ- 
rity. His complete autocracy, also, in practically ail of 
his society schemes, while it may have been in part neces- 
sary to their continued existence, was probably a source of 
occasional pain even to his collaborators.%” 

But even though Furnivall’s reiterated protests against 
the general lack of popular interest in English literary 
antiquities may not have been wholly justified by the con- 
ditions of the society’s organization and administration, 
and the nature of the texts which it was its business to pro- 
Morris’s Early English Alliterative Poems: ‘‘The first poem, called 
by Mr. Morris ‘The Pearl,’ is one of those visions of Paradise of 
which we have already seen so many. ... What strikes the ordinary 
reader at first sight is the. extreme difficulty, and what we would call 
the uncouthness, of language in these poems.’’ 

87T am not speaking wholly at random here. A collection of cor- 
respondence to and from the Rev. Joseph Woodfall Ebsworth, which 
is now in my possession, contains comments from Furnivall’s 
acquaintances upon the value of the personal equation in the 
Furnivall projects which are not strictly in harmony with the 
opinions expressed by his friends in the memorial volume. [I inti- 
mate this not from any desire to quarrel with the common judgment 
of a great character, but to suggest what seems one clear reason why 
his societies were in comparison with other societies of similar ob- 
jects, both before and since, relatively weakly supported. 


PHILOLOGICAL AND TEXT SOCIETIES 161 


duce, it must be said that the setting afoot and successful 
conduct not merely of the Early English Text Society, but, 
in time, of the Ballad and Chaucer Societies, the New 
Shakspere Society, the Browning Society and the Wiclif 
Society, was a task which required Atlantean strength and 
energy, not to say unquestioned scholarly attainments and 
high executive capacity. It is to be doubted whether any- 
one other than Furnivall could at this time, in the face of 
slow interest and a variety of discouragements, have carried 
through such a series of editorial and administrative labors 
over so long a period of years. The Early English Text 
Society was from the date of its foundation until Furni- 
vall’s death in 1910 under his directorship; which is to 
say that practically the entire history of the society is a 
history of his personal labors for it. 

In the Original Series of the society’s publications, which 
opened at a guinea a year at the time of the society’s founda- 
tion, there have appeared in forty-eight years one hundred 
and forty-three numbers. In the Extra Series, which was 
opened in 1867, there have appeared one hundred and nine 
numbers. This series was issued for the reprinting of 
black letter books and already published manuscripts which 
were either scarce or inadequately edited. To indicate 
even in the most general fashion the variety and extent of 
the society’s work would be to give a bibliography of its 
publications; and this, fortunately, is issued annually in 
satisfactory form by the society itself. The society has, in 
a word, already printed the bulk of important Old and 
Middle English literature, exclusive of Chaucer and ballad 
material; so its work of the present and future is less 
within the purely literary field than formerly, and within 
that field is being given over inevitably to what must be 
regarded as of secondary value or interest. Its most monu- 
mental publications are Merlin, Lyndesay’s works, Skeat’s 
edition of Piers Plowman (since revised for the Clarendon 

12 


162 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


Press), the Cursor Mundi in four texts, the Blickling 
Homilies, Aelfric’s Metrical Lives of Saints, the Old Eng- 
lish version of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, and the auto- 
type edition of the Beowulf manuscript. The most impor- 
tant publications in the Extra Series are probably Ellis’s 
Early English Pronunciation, Barbour’s Bruce, Lovelich’s 
Holy Grail, the Charlemagne Romances, many of the extant 
mystery cycles and fragments, Hoccleve’s works, and 
Lydgate’s works. These suggestions of what may be 
merely of the greatest intrinsic value and scholarly magni- 
tude among the society’s publications serve at least to 
emphasize by omission the importance of the vast body of 
poetry, philosophy, romances, saints’ lives, books of man- 
ners, homilies, scriptural paraphrases, moral and devo- 
tional works, and miscellaneous treatises which have not 
been named. 

The workers engaged upon the Early English Text 
Society’s publications have included most of the distin- 
guished English scholars of recent years. To enumerate 
them would be to run through a list of scholarly names of 
late or present prominence. A substantial measure of what 
the society has actually accomplished for English literature 
and linguistics is to be found in its statement of the year 
1911 that the publications had to that date covered a cost 
of over thirty thousand pounds. For the future the society 
announces that at the present rate of production it has in 
preparation or prospect material sufficient for fifty years to 
come; and the amount of work which the society feels it 
ought to undertake would require a century or two of 
publication after the appearance of what is at present upon 
its lists. A point of generosity—and probably well re- 
warded generosity—in the Early English Text Society’s 
plans is that its back volumes are for sale to non-members 
at an advance of fifty percent over their cost to members. 


PHILOLOGICAL AND TEXT SOCIETIES 163 


This provision gives the society a greater range of public 
usefulness than any of the older societies or most of those 
of the present day possess. 

The form of organization of the Early English Text 
Society furnishes in general the model for most of Furni- 
vall’s later societies, that is, for all the remaining text 
societies founded before the close of the nineteenth cen- 
tury save the Spenser Society, the Hunterian Club, and 
the Seottish Text Society. These societies of Furnivall’s 
have been very close corporations; it would be scarcely 
accurate to call their form of organization even oligarchie, 
though the control of the Early English Text Society, as 
the type, is nominally vested in a Committee of Manage- 
ment of about twenty members. The exigencies of whole- 
sale publication such as Furnivall planned have always, of 
course, required extensive collaboration and administra- 
tive responsibility on the part of a large number of gifted 
co-workers; but it has been generally understood that the 
founder and director of the Early English Text Society 
was not merely a nominal head. As for the administrative 
arrangements of the society, the Committee of Management 
possesses all the governing powers of the body—fiseal, edi- 
torial, and executive ; the members possess no voting powers. 
The executive body is self-continuing ; it selects the society’s 
publications, appoints its editors, makes no provision for 
recommendation by subscribers of works which they may 
think it advisable to undertake, and allows the members no 
judgment upon the works proposed. All this contrasts 
rather strongly with the custom of the Bannatyne Club, 
which published at intervals lists of desiderata, and made 
the vote of the members the final word upon what the 
society should undertake; it is in just as strong contrast to 
the administrative policies of the Camden Society, the 
Shakespeare Society, and the Scottish Text Society, for 


164 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


instance, all of which constantly solicited from their mem- 
bers suggestions and advice. There is, however, it must be 
admitted, a patent difference between the aims of the Early 
English Text Society and of most of the other text soci- 
eties; and this difference may justify a special and undemo- 
eratic kind of organization. In the societies whose activities 
have been compared with those of the Early English Text 
Society the principle underlying the selection of the works 
to be printed has been established upon the clear considera- 
tion that whatever was to be published could be no more 
than representative or illustrative of a very large field of 
choice. The Early English Text Society, however, set 
out from the beginning to print an entire corpus of early 
and middle English literature and linguistic material; and 
for this reason the questions of selection and order of 
publication were clearly secondary to the necessity of 
accepting special opportunities—editorial proposals, offers 
of manuscripts or copies, and so on. Indeed, it may be that 
the founder of the Early English Text Society foresaw that 
if his subscribers were left to choose their publications, the 
‘‘plums’’ might have been quickly harvested, and an im- 
poverished body might have been forced to struggle un- 
supported through the task of publishing a quantity of 
material pronouncedly lacking in popular appeal, or even 
have been obliged to abandon its scheme in the end. Its 
plan, then, which was to offer everything as it came, with 
the understanding that in the end everything was to be pro- 
duced, contains no elements of real unfairness; in fact, the 
society’s willingness to sell copies of its works to outsiders 
upon reasonable terms is a concession to purely popular 
demands which it was not required, in the chosen nature of 
its work, to make, but which has justified more than any- 
thing else its appeal for extended popular support. 

The Spenser Society, which, curiously enough, issued 


PHILOLOGICAL AND TEXT SOCIETIES 165 


none of Spenser’s works,** was formed in Manchester in 
1866%° with James Crossley, a local scholar and antiquary 
of recognized gifts, as its first president. He was suc- 
ceeded upon his death by A. W. Ward. The announced 
purpose of the society was ‘‘the reprinting of the rarer 
poetical literature of the sixteenth and seventeenth cen- 
turies.’’*° A notable departure from the aims of any 
scholarly organization hitherto existing, however, was its 
resolution ‘‘to reprint the works of each author in as com- 
plete a form as possible.’’ The society was to be limited 
to two hundred members, and its issues were to be of an 
expensive character. The dress finally chosen for the pub- 
lications was a small quarto on a curious ribbed paper, 
with reprints in folio of the works which had been 
originally issued in that form. In the first year of publi- 
cation, 1867, the membership lists were closed with the 
number provided for.*t The publications of the society 
consist of two series, the Original Series containing forty- 
seven volumes, and the New Series six volumes, with two 
extra ones. The issues comprised the complete works of 
John Taylor the Water Poet, Michael Drayton, and George 
Wither, the non-dramatic works of John Heywood, and 
separate pieces by Alexander Barclay, Bodenham, and 
Churchyard. The society was closed in 1894,* its last 
volume, Oliver Elton’s Introduction to Michael Drayton, 
the only purely critical volume published by the society, 
appearing in the following year. The reprints of the 
Spenser Society were produced upon a high plane of 

88 The society received an apportionment of Grosart’s edition of 
Spenser, but with the editing of this work the society had of course 
nothing to do. 

39 Dic. Nat. Biog., XIII, 229. 

40 Notes and Queries, 3rd Series, XI, 308. 


41 Athenaeum, June 15, 1867, 792. 
42 Athenaeum, October 13, 1894, 496. 


166 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


textual accuracy and general excellence; in fact, with the 
Hunterian Club, this society is the best example of the 
purely amateur type of organization, which, combining the 
aims and methods of both the dilettante clubs and the 
scholarly societies, achieve work which is at once of the 
highest practical value and the greatest aesthetic attraction. 

The work of Hales and Furnivall upon the Percy Folio 
Manuscript in 1867 brought to Furnivall the plan of 
founding a society for the publication of all the extant 
English ballad material.**? The Ballad Society was there- 
fore advertised to commence publication in 1868. The 
Pepys collection at Magdalene College, Cambridge, the 
largest in existence, was the one which Furnivall wished to 
attack first; he accordingly proposed to the Fellows of 
Magdalene that they should act in union with the Ballad 
Society for the publication of their collection; but his 
proposal was rejected.4* William Chappell then under- 
took to edit the Roxburghe collection, but he insisted that 
the entire body of these ballads should be copied before 
publication was begun; so in the meantime Furnivall him- 
self began the publications of the society with his series of 
classified Ballads from Manuscripts, the first part of which 
appeared in 1868. The first number of Chappell’s Roz- 
burghe Ballads came out in the following year, and publi- 
cation went on apace, Furnivall’s issue of Captain Cox’s 
Ballads appearing in 1871, his Love Poems and Humorous 
Ones in 1874, and J. W. Ebsworth’s Bagford Ballads in 
1877 and 1878. Chappell’s declining health had mean- 
while compelled him to stop work upon the completion of 
the third volume of the Roxburghe Ballads and Ebsworth 
took up the work from this point. From this time on, 
Ebsworth was the sole editor of all that came from the 

43 Bishop Percy’s Folio Manuscript, edited by John W. Hales and 


Frederick J. Furnivall, 1867-8; I, xxv—xxvi. 
44 [Announcement of the Ballad Society, 1878.] 


PHILOLOGICAL AND TEXT SOCIETIES 167 


society, the remaining five (really six) volumes of the 
Roxburghe Ballads taking up exclusively all the time and 
money of the society after the Bagford Ballads were com- 
pleted. The twenty-fifth and final part of the Roxburghe 
Ballads, which was the last of the society’s issues, was pub- 
lished in 1899, thirty years after the opening of publica- 
tion. A general index to this collection which Ebsworth 
had in preparation did not receive enough subscriptions to 
permit its publication,*® and an edition of Civil War 
Ballads which he was to have undertaken was carried no 
further than the announcement. 

The Ballad Society is a rather striking example of the 
eventual failure of a society not founded upon a genuinely 
collaborative basis. From the beginning Furnivall was 
the nominal head of the society, but from 1875 on Ebsworth 
was the really responsible head, and carried all the editorial 
work quite unaided, as he said to his friends and to the 
public in his valedictory notes. The society when it com- 
menced publication in 1868 had very nearly two hundred 
members; but, Ebsworth says, the first income ‘‘was 
frittered away in payments to incompetent copyists, of 
texts that would not be needed for a score of years,’’ and 
considerable portions of which were not to be used at all; 
and ‘‘the most wasteful extravagance of space was per- 
sisted in’’ in the early publications.*® In 1880, when only 
the Roxburghe Ballads remained to be completed, the mem- 
bership had decreased to about one hundred and thirty, 
and for the concluding number of the Roxburghe Ballads 
there were considerably less than one hundred subscribers. 
All this seems to speak of weak administrative methods; we 
may take Ebsworth’s word for it. But it reflected also 
poor editorial policies on Ebsworth’s part. Not taking to 


45 The Roxburghe Ballads, VIII-IX, 878. 
46 The Roxburghe Ballads, Preface to Part XXV, viii**-ix**, 


168 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


heart the admonition of the editor of Notes and Queries, 
who found fault with the bulky critical apparatus of the 
first of the society’s volumes,*7 Ebsworth loaded down his 
books with useless and facetious (and latterly mis- 
ogynistical) comment, fragmentary quotations, editorial 
confidences, doggerel of his own, and a thousand needless 
editorial obstructions of all kinds. The quality of the 
work, in comparison with that of the Early English Text 
Society and the Chaucer Society, could have been only dis- 
appointing to those who had supported the enterprise; 
and it can not be questioned that these silly extravagances 
cost him many subscribers. It was apparent for many 
years, therefore, that the Ballad Society could not outlive 
the completion of the monumental work then in hand, and 
it passed away when the Roxburghe collection was printed 
off. 

The Chaucer Society, Furnivall’s third society project, 
was established in the same year as the Ballad Society, and 
has led an industrious and thoroughly useful existence 
ever since. Furnivall served as administrative head of this 
society until his death, and was the responsible editor of 
most of its publications. Upon his death he was succeeded 
by Professor Skeat. Since the society had by this time 
completed most of the important textual work which it had 
undertaken, its textual publications, which constituted its 
First Series, had been for some time appearing at wider 
intervals; and its works upon sources, analogues, language, 
chronology, contemporary illustration, social studies, por- 
traits, and syntax, to which its Second Series was devoted, 
had been taking up a larger proportion of its time and 
effort. The great work of this society was its publication 
of the six parallel text edition of the Ellesmere, Hengwrt, 
Cambridge, Corpus, Petworth, and Lansdowne manuscripts 


47 Notes and Queries, Fourth Series, III, 255. 


PHILOLOGICAL AND TEXT SOCIETIES 169 


of the Canterbury Tales. These texts were also reprinted 
separately, with the addition of the Harleian and Cam- 
bridge Dd manuscripts. The ninety-seven volumes of the 
First Series contain also all the manuscripts of the minor 
poems, in parallel and separate texts, a parallel text edition 
of Troylus and Criseyde, The Romaunt of the Rose, Boethius, 
The Treatise on the Astrolabe, autotypes of manuscripts, 
rime indexes, and related material. Among the prominent 
contributors to the special publications of the Second Series 
were Skeat, Koch, Littlehales, Kittredge, Spielman, and 
Ellis. The dissolution of the Chaucer Society was. an- 
nounced in 1912. 

The moving spirits of the Hunterian Club, of Glasgow, 
which began its publishing activities in 1871, were members 
of the faculty of the University; the name of the society, 
in fact, was taken from that of the University library and 
museum. The club limited its membership to two hundred, 
and printed only ten copies of its publications in excess of 
this number. The aims of the club were apparently not 
social. Its membership was gathered largely in and about 
Glasgow, but included a number of outside subscribers, 
among them Collier, Halliwell, Grosart, and Furnivall. 
None of these prominent scholars, however, were directly 
concerned with the issuance of the club’s publications; these 
were produced almost entirely through the efforts of local 
students. David Laing, who edited three gift-books for the 
society, was, curiously enough, never a member, although 
there seems to have been the best of feeling between this 
patriarch of Northern scholarship and the club. One detail 
of the club’s aim was unique as a society project, in that 
it contemplated issuing all of its texts in fac-simile, as far 
as the necessity of setting up the texts in type would 
permit. The first works undertaken by the club were those 
of Samuel Rowlands, which began to appear in 1871 and 


170 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


were completed in 1880. Of equal importance with the 
club’s edition of Rowlands’s tracts is its edition of Thomas 
Lodge. Its most important and extensive work, however, 
was the reproduction of the entire Bannatyne manuscript, 
with some of the old Bannatyne Club’s critical apparatus, 
but without excisions or changes of any sort. The first 
number of this publication was put out in 1873, and the 
seventh, which completed the reprint itself, in 1881. The 
glossary to the work was not issued until 1894, six years 
after the club had practically ceased to exist. 

When the Hunterian Club was nearing the end of its 
publication of the Bannatyne Manuscript, it decided to rest 
upon the achievements of the past. In the whole period of 
its activity it had shown an enviable industry and scholarly 
responsibility ; but from the fact that its membership never 
reached the expectations of the founders, it is probably 
safe to assume that the financial affairs of the body were a 
source of pretty constant anxiety on the part of the admin- 
istrative officers. That the society accomplished so much 
systematic and entirely finished work is, in view of its 
small numbers, really remarkable. There is probably no 
body of its kind throughout the century which, propor- 
tionately to the brief period of the Hunterian’s existence, 
succeeded in producing in all of its publication from first 
to last so much of intrinsic worth with scholarly accuracy 
and unimpeachable taste in book making. The club, in 
short, appropriated what was happiest and most useful in 
both the bibliophile clubs and the printing societies. 

It is regrettable, in view of what the Hunterian Club 
accomplished, that the closing of its activities should be 
marked by an extraordinary instance of the essential 
narrowness of the bibliophile instinct. In giving notice 
of the discontinuance of the club after the completion of 
the Bannatyne volumes, the Highth Annual Report in- 


PHILOLOGICAL AND TEXT SOCIETIES ib ck 


formed the members that ‘‘the Council has further decided 
that all previous issues remaining in stock after the 1st of 
July, 1888, shall be destroyed, so as effectually to prevent 
any of the club’s publications finding their way into the 
book market as remainders.’’** It is difficult to excuse this 
kind of action under any conditions; still there is a trace 
of justice in the council’s explanation that it would be un- 
fair to the members who had borne the pains and expenses 
of publication if a large quantity of their product should 
be thrown for a trifling price into the hands of those who 
had stood aloof from the enterprise when it had entailed 
a degree of personal and financial sacrifice. 

In the autumn of 1873 Furnivall published his pros- 
pectus for a New Shakspere Society. This document is a 
rather interestingly thorough-going Furnivallian piece. It 
begins with the characteristic appeal to the national 
honor,*® and defines a field of activities for the society’s 
entire existence; which was in short the establishment of 
a Shakspere canon of authorship and chronology. The 
society’s principal publications were to comprise parallel 
reprints of the quartos and folios, and possibly a critical 
edition of Shakspere’s works and a biography; although 
Furnivall apparently intended to attempt little with the 
Shakspere text, upon which, said he, ‘‘there will not be 
much to do, thanks to the labours of the many distinguisht 

48 Hunterian Club, Eighth Annual Report [1887], 3. 

49 ““Tt is a disgrace to England that while Germany can boast of a 
Shakspere Society which has gathered into itself all its country’s 
choicest scholars, England is now without such a society. It is a 
disgrace, again, to England that even now, 257 years after Shak- 
spere’s death, the study of him has been so narrow, and the criticism 
So wooden, that no book by any Englishman exists which deals in any 
worthy manner with Shakspere as a whole, which tracks the rise and 
growth of his genius from the boyish romanticism or the sharp 


young-mannishness of his early plays, to the magnificence, the 
splendour, the divine intuition, which mark his ripest works.’’ 


172 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


scholars who have so long and so faithfully workt at it.’’ 
Incidentally, the society was to take up conjectural read- 
ings, pronunciation, ‘‘under Ellis’s leadership,’’ and 
Shaksperean spelling. Tennyson was first offered the posi- 
tion of Honorary President, but declined ; so the presidency 
of the society remained unfilled until 1879, when Brown- 
ing accepted it. <A long list of honorary vice-presidents 
included the best known English, German, and American 
scholars of the time, with a sprinkling of distinguished 
men from other professional walks. Furnivall insisted from 
the first that German scholarship was to form the basis 
and method of the society’s entire work; so the Saturday 
Review ventured to admonish him that ‘‘caution would be 
more necessary than any other quality in the prosecution 
of this cardinal part of the society’s labors,’’ continuing 
with a gentle argumentum ad personam: ‘‘The caution is 
perhaps more needed here than in Germany; for English 
literary men are apt, like English men of science, to sit 
down in companies and to overrate the necessity of sup- 
porting the views of ‘authority.’ It may be all very well 
for Mr. Furnivall to inform us that Mr. Tennyson ‘tells’ 
him that Fletcher’s hand ‘workt out Shakspere’s original 
conception’ of Henry VIII. We are well aware that Mr. 
Tennyson is ‘the greatest living poet in England,’ but still 
we venture to ask, If Mr. Tennyson told Mr. Furnivall, who 
told Mr. Tennyson ?’’5° 

The society was to maintain an active interest in its 
work by regular meetings, with papers and discussions, 
‘“‘the papers being shorter, and the discussions much fuller, 
than in other bodies.’’ The proceedings of the meetings 
were to be chronicled in the Transactions of the society, 
which were to form the First Series of the society’s publi- 
cations. The other series of the publications were to be 


50 XXXVII, 12; January 3, 1874. 


PHILOLOGICAL AND TEXT SOCIETIES 7s 


divided into seven classes. The Second Series was to in- 
clude the original quarto and folio texts of the plays; the 
Third Series originals and analogues of the plays, the 
Fourth Series Shakspere allusion books, the Fifth Series 
(in which no numbers were ever published) selections from 
the contemporary drama, the Sixth, works on Shakspere’s 
England, the Seventh, English mysteries, miracles, masks, 
interludes, and comedies, and the Highth, miscellanies, in- 
eluding specimens of Elizabethan and Jacobean hand- 
writing, and reprints of Shaksperean criticism. Furni- 
vall wished a thousand members for the new society, but 
at its maximum the membership never reached much more 
than a third of that number, this including libraries, insti- 
tutions, and lastly ‘‘branch societies,’’ a feature of Furni- 
vall’s scheme of organization. 

The first meeting of the New Shakspere Society was held 
on a truly ominous day, Friday, the thirteenth of March, 
1874. At this meeting Furnivall, who in his introductory 
address reviewed the progress of the lines of investigation 
upon which the society was to work, ‘‘handed the society 
over, in full working order, to the Committee of Workers.’’>? 
The membership at the opening was about two hundred 

51 The New Shakspere Society’s Transactions, 1874, I, viii. There 
is a characteristic note here: ‘‘ With regard to the formation of the 
society I wish to say a word or two, because some people have com- 
plained that I have taken too much on myself in this matter. I 
can only say that I formd this society in the same way that I 
formd all the other societies I have founded; that is, having a special 
work to get done, I askt people to come forward and help to do it. 
I didn’t ask people in general to come forward, and tell me what 
to do, because I knew (more or less) what special things I wanted 
done; and when this was the case, I have always found the best 
way was, to say so, and let anybody who thought your object a 
worthy one, come forward and offer to help in attaining it. But to 
let a number of people come together haphazard, sit down on your 


objects, and turn your means to other ends, is a way I don’t see the 
good of; a way I never have taken, and never mean to take.’’ 


174 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


and fifty. The society immediately precipitated itself into 
the machinery of German critical scholarship, and busied 
itself with the ‘‘tests,’’ metrical, pause, and speech-ending, 
with great enthusiasm. From the beginning the society had 
in view the attainment of definite conclusions, finality, the 
absolute settlement of questions; and this confident atti- 
tude seemed to many outsiders to imply that the conclu- 
sions were likely to be reached before the proofs were 
adduced; but in the main the members worked with care 
and restraint; and there were really but few of them who 
sacrificed themselves to hasty or one-sided judgments. 

The society was very active during the first few years of 
its existence. By the year 1886 it had issued thirty num- 
bers of its publications, exclusive of its Transactions. 
These numbers included in the Second Series a promising 
beginning for the society’s projected quarto and folio re- 
prints, including separate and parallel reprints and revised 
reprints of Romeo and Juliet and Henry V, and further 
editions of The Two Noble Kinsmen and Cymbeline. The 
Third Series contained only one volume, Arthur Brooke’s 
Tragicall Historye of Romeus and Iuliet. The first of the 
series of allusion books contained entire reprints of well- 
known Elizabethan material, such as Greene’s Groatsworth 
of Wit and Chettle’s Kind-Hart’s Dream; the other two 
volumes in this series being composed of shorter critical 
and allusive excerpts. In the Shakspere’s England series 
appeared Harrison’s Description of England, Stubbes’ 
Anatomie of Abuses, and a number of shorter pieces. The 
only volume in the proposed series of emergent dramatic 
genres was Furnivall’s edition of the Digby Mysteries. 
Four numbers of the Miscellanies Series had also been pub- 
lished. In the Transactions of the society from the first 
there had appeared papers exceeded in importance only 
by the best analytical work of the Germans, and also, inevi- 


PHILOLOGICAL AND TEXT SOCIETIES 175 


tably, some papers more remarkable for daring than dis- 
cretion. F. G. Fleay was the earliest constant contributor 
to the proceedings; and throughout the period of the 
society’s activity papers were read by J. W. Hales, John 
K. Ingram, Delius, Spedding, P. A. Daniel, Ruskin, 
Brinsley Nicholson, Grace Latham, Robert Boyle, Sidney 
Lee, Stopford Brooke, and a multitude of others of greater 
or less prominence; in all, a singular array of scholars. 
The most conspicuous feature of the meetings was, as Furni- 
vall had proposed, protracted discussion, in which Furni- 
vall himself appropriated a large portion of the general 
time and opportunity. 

An unfortunate distraction to the society, when it was 
at the supreme point of its accomplishment, however, arose 
in the form of a long-continued and very bitter contro- 
versy, which involved Swinburne, Furnivall, and Halliwell- 
Phillipps, and was pursued with a reckless rancor that 
would have done credit to Ritson or Gifford.®? The quarrel 
began when in 1876 Swinburne, venturing upon an almost 
exclusively aesthetic study of Shakspere, possibly in delib- 
erate opposition to what he regarded as the mechanical 
methods of German scholarship which were made so much 
of by the New Shakspere Society, attempted to decide for 
Shakspere’s unaided authorship of Henry VIII,>> and in 
particular against Spedding’s critical judgment of the 
metrical questions involved.®* Furnivall replied to Swin- 
burne’s arbitrary and hasty opinion in a letter, not very 

52 Furnivall’s management of the society had already been made 
the object of an absurd attack issued anonymously by John Jere- 
miah: Furnivallos Furioso and ‘‘the Newest Shakespeare Society,’’ 
a dram-attic squib of the period in three fizzes, London, 1876. 

53 Fortnightly Review, XXV, 37-45, 1876. 

54 Of the several Shares of Shakspere and Fletcher in the Play of 
Henry VIII, Gentleman’s Magazine, August, 1850, 115-23. Re- 


printed in The New Shakspere Society’s Transactions, 1874, Ap- 
pendix to Part I, 1*-18*. 


176 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


provoking, to the Academy,** in which he submitted evi- 
dence of the error of Swinburne’s pronouncements. In the 
succeeding number of the Academy,°® Swinburne took issue 
with Furnivall’s criticisms in ungracious fashion, but the 
substance of his argument was an evasion of the statements 
to which he had committed himself, and Furnivall answered 
this in the second number following.®? There was really no 
reply possible to Furnivall’s use of exact evidence; so Swin- 
burne for the time being held his peace. He soon retaliated, 
however, with the publication of two scathing and thor- 
oughly laughable parodies upon the learned investigations 
of the New Shakspere Society,°® ridiculing the use of met- 
rical and related tests, and the rash manipulation of inter- 
nal evidence. In 1879, however, the quarrel became more 
bitter, when, in a Note on the Historical Play of King 
Edward IIT,°® Swinburne again held up to ridicule the 
‘*New-Shakespearean synagogue’’ and their ‘‘ New Shakes- 
peare.’’ Relying too much upon his ‘‘delicacy of ear,’’ he 
ventured in this article to pronounce final judgment upon 
some questions of Shakesperean diction; and Furnivall 
descended upon him with naked dirk gleaming in his hand. 
In two letters addressed to the editor of the Spectator,®° he 
took up specifically Swinburne’s confident decisions upon 


55 [X, 34-5, January 8, 1876. 

56 TX, 53-5, January 15, 1876. 

57 1X, 98-9, January 29, 1876. 

58 Report of the First Anniversary Meeting of the Newest Shake- 
speare Society (April 1, 1876), Examiner, April 1, 1876; The Newest 
Shakespeare Society; Additions and Corrections, Examiner, April 15, 
1876. Both of the papers are reprinted in the appendix to A Study 
of Shakespeare, 1880. 

59 Gentleman’s Magazine, August and September, 1879; 170-81, 
330-49. This paper also is appended to A Study of Shakespeare, 
1880. 

60 September 6 and 13, 1879. The two letters were reprinted, with 
comments, by Furnivall in the same year under the title Mr. Swin- 
burne’s ‘‘ Flat Burglary’’ on Shakspere. 


PHILOLOGICAL AND TEXT SOCIETIES 177 


the questions, and with the incontrovertible evidence of 
quotation and reference he attacked Swinburne’s pose as a 
eritic whose intuitive faculties were superior to the syste- 
matic analysis of the ‘‘Newest Shakespeare’’ school, and 
practically annihilated his pretensions. 

Early in 1880 appeared Swinburne’s A Study of Shakes- 
peare, which was elaborated from two articles, The Three 
Stages of Shakespeare, published in the Fortnightly® in 
1875 and 1876; the two articles which, by the way, had 
provided Furnivall with his first ammunition. This volume 
was reviewed very harshly by Dowden in the first number 
of the Academy for that year,®* and with special emphasis 
upon Swinburne’s contumacy in sticking to his old asser- 
tion that Shakspere was the sole author of Henry VIII. 
The review was greeted with letters from both Swinburne 
and Furnivall,®* and later in the year another couple of 
letters followed,** leaving Furnivall in the attitude of 
challenging Swinburne to ‘‘ dispute his facts and argument,’’ 
and Swinburne satisfied that with ‘‘such a person’’ he 
would ‘‘almost as soon think of entering into correspond- 
ence as of entering into controversy.’’ Furnivall fired a 
parting shot in a letter, again crowded with damaging 
evidence of Swinburne’s fatuity, in the next number of the 
Academy. Swinburne was without question disastrously 
beaten. 

At this point Halliwell-Phillipps joined the encounter. 
When Swinburne was preparing to publish his Study of 
Shakespeare, which was to include in an appendix the three 
articles in criticism of the New Shakspere Society, he 
decided to display his reverence for the old canons of 

61 XXIII, 613-32, XXV, 24-45, 1875-6. 

62 XVII, 1-2, January 3, 1880. 

83 Academy, XVII, 28, January 10, 1880. 


64 Tbid., XVII, 476, June 26, 1880; XVIII, 9, Boars 1880. 
65 XVIII, 27-8, July 10, 1880. 


15 


178 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


Shaksperean criticism by dedicating his volume to Halli- 
well; and Halliwell, whose vanity was apparently easily 
tickled, accepted what he probably regarded as a gracious 
compliment. Whether Halliwell, who up to this time had 
been a peaceful and inactive member of the New Shakspere 
Society, could read to the bottom of Swinburne’s idea, and 
actually saw that Swinburne was hiding behind him to take 
a shot at Furnivall, is of course hard to say; the probability 
is that he relished the compliment and was a bit slyly 
pleased that Furnivall, whose new scholarship had so 
greatly overshadowed that of his own day, would have to 
swallow Swinburne’s aspersion. In any event, there was 
no question in Furnivall’s mind as to the state of things. 
‘*T at once wrote to Mr. Hell.-P.,’’ he says,®* ‘‘saying with 
what astonishment I had heard that he, affecting then to be 
my friend, had agreed to let these insolent Reprints, &c. be 
dedicated to him. I pointed out to him that, as the char- 
acter of the Pigsbrook articles was known to him, and all 
of the Shakspere set, his acceptance of the dedication of 
them would be a deliberate adoption by him of the insults 
in the articles; and I told him that if his name appeared 
before the book, it would stop all relations between him and 
me; I would cut him dead; and that if he thus adopted and 
offered insults to my friends and me, he would find it a 
game which two could play at.’’ Halliwell denied his 
responsibility for the contents of the book, but Furnivall 
reiterated his threat. The volume appeared in 1880, with 
the dedication to Halliwell. 

Furnivall’s revenge appeared in his Forewords to his 
reprint of the second quarto of Hamlet, the second of the 
Shakspere Quarto Fac-Similes. Here he referred to Swin- 
burne and Halliwell under the corporate name of ‘‘Pigs- 
brook and Co.,’’ and called ‘‘what they are pleased to call 


66 The ‘‘Co.’’ of Pigsbrook g Co., [1881], 2. 


PHILOLOGICAL AND TEXT SOCIETIES 179 


their opinions,’’ ‘‘porcine vagaries,’’ descending to rather 
meaningless vulgarity throughout his foot-notes to the pref- 
ace. Halliwell then appealed to the Committee of the New 
Shakspere Society, asking their censure for Furnivall’s 
attack,** but the Committee replied that they did ‘‘not 
consider the matter as falling within their jurisdiction.’’® 
Halliwell thereupon wrote to Browning, the Honorary 
President of the society, asking him to use his office for the 
purpose of securing a retraction from Furnivall,®® whose 
position as Director of the Society was proclaimed upon 
the title-page of the Quarto Fac-Similes, and who had 
advertised the volumes as appearing ‘‘with the approval 
of the Committee of the New Shakspere Society, and the 
co-operation of its leading editors.’’ Browning wrote in 
reply that his connection with the society was purely honor- 


67 Furnivall closed his pamphlet with a P. S.: ‘‘ You will see that 
I have said nothing of Mr. Hell.—P.’s action as regards the Com- 
mittee; but as I see it, this it is. After two warnings not to do an 
act which I, being Chairman of the Committee, tell him will be an 
insult to our Society, and each of us, he deliberately does the act. I 
retaliate, in a book for which I am solely responsible. He then 
comes coolly to the men whom he has insulted, and using fresh 
insulting expressions to me, their Chairman, asks them to blame me. 
Had I been free to act for them, I should of course have torn 
Mr. Hell.—P.’s letter into four pieces, and sent ’em back to him 
with the inscription ‘‘Mr. Phillipps’s insolent epistle is returned to 
him.’’ But the Committee treated him with great forbearance, and 
he, unfortunately, has not been able to appreciate it.’’ The ‘‘Co.’’ 
of Pigsbrook § Co., 6. 

68 [Halliwell’s published Correspondence with Browning], 3. 

69 ‘The obvious course would have been to have appealed to a 
general meeting of the Society, but here a difficulty arises, there be- 
ing no provisions under which such a meeting can be summoned,— 
no constitution, no laws, no regulations, and no power whatever 
vested in any of the members,—there being, in fact, no Society at 
all. ... Under these circumstances, ... you will, I feel sure, excuse 
my asking if you will not insist upon the Director’s withdrawal of 
the above-quoted disreputable language.’’ (Ibid., 4.) 


180 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


ary and that he had not as yet, in fact, attended any of its 
meetings; but the point of Halliwell’s appeal he did not 
touch. Halliwell then wrote him another letter, assailing 
the management of the society, and chiefly its Director, 
and published the correspondence. 

Furnivall again returned to the fray with a very arro- 
gant open letter, The ‘‘Co.’’ of Pigsbrook & Co., in which, 
after accusing Halliwell of evasion in disclaiming respon- 
sibility for the contents of Swinburne’s book, he sought 
refuge for himself by endeavoring simultaneously to dis- 
sociate his personal action from his official connection with 
the society, and to justify that action as retaliation for ‘‘an 
insult to our society.’’*° After Halliwell’s publication of 
his correspondence with Browning, the Athenaeum took 
up the cudgels for him.“ It gave its opinion that ‘‘the 
Committee ought at least to express its disapprobation’’ of 
Furnivall’s ‘‘flowers of rhetoric,’’ and added that it was 
‘‘hopeless for them to deny responsibility for the preface 
in which Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps was wantonly insulted.”’ 
In the early part of the same year a memorial was addressed 
by some-of the prominent members of the society to the 
Committee, asking for censure. The Committee again, how- 
ever, refused to interfere.“ As a result there was some- 
thing of an exodus of members from the society,”? and 

70 The ‘‘Co.’’ of Pigsbrook & Co., 6. 

71 February 5, 26, March 12, 19, 26, April 16, 1881. 

72 Athenaeum, March 12, 19, 26, April 2, 1881; 367, 397, 429, 461. 

73 Among those who expressed in this manner their disapproval of 
Furnivall’s part in the controversy were R. C. Jebb, J. W. Hales, 
Buxton Forman, C. M. Ingleby, Henry Morley, and Leslie Stephen. 
Spedding, whose position as to the authorship of Henry VIII was the 
immediate ground of Furnivall’s attack upon Swinburne, was among 
those who resolved to retire from the society. He wrote shortly 


before his death (which occurred before the final action of the Com- 
mittee upon the memorial): ‘‘If the society has no organization 


PHILOLOGICAL AND TEXT SOCIETIES 181 


Skeat, Grosart, Aldis Wright, Ulrici, Delius, Elze, and Leo 
resigned their honorary vice-presidencies. The gaps were 
then filled up by Sweet, Murray, and Prof. Paul Meyer of 
the Collége de France. Furnivall addressed a note to the 
seceding members of the society: ‘‘On the point taken by 
you,’’ this ran, ‘‘opinions differ. My opinion is that ‘the 
duty’ of the New Shakspere Society is to mind its own 
business,—that is, to study Shakspere. . . . I regard as an 
impertinence your intrusion of yourselves into a dispute 
declared by me to be private between Mr. Halliwell- 
Phillipps and myself, and I am now glad to be rid of you, 
whose return for the faithful work I have given you (and 
others) is this present censorious caballing against me.’’™* 

It has been said, though possibly with some degree of 
prejudice, that this episode was the immediate occasion of 
the decline of the Shakspere Society’s effective work.7> In 
any event, it is certain that with decimated numbers, and 
discord still grumbling within the society’s ranks, it was in 
a much weaker state than before, and it is a fact that from 
1882 on, the publications of the society, barring the Trans- 
actions, became noticeably fewer and less important, until 
they ceased altogether in 1886. The eight volumes of Fur- 
nivall’s ‘‘Old Spelling Shakspere,’’ which were advertised 
from 1883 to 1886 as ‘‘at press,’’ never came out; and the 
dozen volumes, more or less, which the society had ‘‘in 
preparation’’ or under consideration at this date joined the 
‘Old Spelling Shakspere’’ in the limbo of books all but 
published. From this time on, the only issues of the society 
were its Transactions, which chronicled its activities until 
1892, the last paper recorded bearing date June tenth of 
eapable of putting a stop to the use of such language by its 
Director, it is not a society to which a gentleman can belong.’’ 
(Athenaeum, March 26, 1881, 429.) 


74 Athenaeum, April 30, 1881, 593. 
75 Shakespeareana, 1892; 185-6. 


182 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


that year. In the same year Furnivall announced what 
proved to be the society’s last publication, a reprint of 
Robert Laneham’s Letter, from the plates of his edition of 
Captain Cox’s Ballads for the Ballad Society in 1871, for, 
as he explained, ‘‘the falling off in the subscriptions to the 
New Shakspere Society makes it needful that a cheap re- 
print shall be provided for the issue of 1887’’* (then five 
years delayed). The society afterwards passed quietly out 
of existence, no notice being given of its dissolution, if it 
was ever formally dissolved, and none of the contemporary 
reviews commenting upon its disappearance. 

The first suggestion for the formation of a society for 
the scientific study of English dialects was made by Aldis 
Wright in a letter to Notes and Queries in 1870.7 This 
letter was followed by comments from a number of linguis- 
tic scholars,”® and finally Alexander J. Ellis proposed the 
formation of the English Dialect Society in the introduc- 
tion to the third part of his Karly English Pronunciation, 
published in 1871. The society was soon afterward organ- 
ized with about one hundred and twenty-five members; it 
planned the issuance of four series of publications, to 
include bibliographies of all works illustrative of provin- 
cial dialects, reprints of old glossaries, original glossography, 
and miscellanies. As a beginning for the society’s collect- 
ive work, there was issued in the first year a set of Rules 
and Directions for Word Collectors, and the Philological 
Society’s plan was followed of gathering and filing slips 
containing illustrative examples contributed by a large 
number of workers. The result was that through this col- 
laborative research and the trained scholarship of a few 

76 Jahrbuch der deutschen Shakespeare Gesellschaft, XXVII, 249, 
1892. 

77 Notes and Queries, 4th Series, V, 271, March 12, 1870. 


78 The communications are quoted in the announcement of the 
English Dialect Society for 1873. 


PHILOLOGICAL AND TEXT SOCIETIES 183 


gifted leaders, the society published between 1873 and 
1896, when the publications were closed, eighty volumes of 
county and other local glossaries, old lexicons, and other 
important linguistic material. The society was rather an 
exceptional example of distributed activity, for a large 
number of scholars, many not very well known, appeared 
as editors of its issues. The most prominently active of 
these were Skeat and Ellis, J. H. Nodal, F. T. Elworthy, 
James Britten, Thomas Hallam, Joseph Wright, and R. O. 
Heslop. The English Dialect Society was brought to a 
close at the moment that Joseph Wright began to carry out 
the society’s original purpose of publishing a dialect dic- 
tionary; and Wright’s English Dialect Dictionary itself is 
of course derived in large part from the great mass of 
linguistic material published in the society’s eighty 
volumes.”® 

The first important society of a type more or less familiar 
and more or less generally ridiculed during the last decades 
of the nineteenth century was the Wordsworth Society. 
This society, like other societies of its kind, devoted itself 
exclusively to spreading the appreciation of the works of 
a single author, and an author, too, not very far removed 
either in point of time or of intellectual outlook from those 
who endeavored to study him. The limitation of the field 
of interest of a considerable body of men in such a manner 
tended almost inevitably to the cultivation of a scholar- 
ship that was not always measured by common sense, and 
an enthusiasm touched at times by very narrow prejudices. 
It is a matter of common remark that in a number of the 
greater and lesser societies and clubs formed for the exalta- 
tion of a single literary figure, careless and precipitate 
judgment interfered with sound study and often invited 
irritating ridicule. Before the close of the century there 


79 The English Dialect Dictionary, edited by Joseph Wright, I, vii. 


184 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


was a Carlyle Society, a Bronté Society, a Ruskin Society, 
and Shelley Societies, Browning Societies, and Burns Soci- 
eties not a few. The vogue of these organizations unques- 
tionably did much to increase general interest in their 
favorite authors, and, more tangibly, to provide historical 
and biographical material of very real value; indeed, these 
projects enlisted the efforts of small bodies of original 
workers who, without the incentive and the direction of 
collective study, could have produced absolutely nothing of 
themselves. On the other hand, the laudation of a single 
literary personage no doubt warped the vision of many of 
the participants in these pleasant projects, and prepared 
the way for much futile appreciative criticism and much 
purely nonsensical speculation. There is something intrin- 
sically absurd in the introduction of literary culture as a 
diversion at afternoon teas; and this was what the vogue 
of many of the later Browning Societies, for instance, 
apparently meant. On the other hand, taken seriously, by 
scholars of adequate training, and readers of literary judg- 
ment, such societies could, and did, accomplish much; and 
nothing is more significant of the difference between a real 
and an affected literary cultivation than the solid results of 
the activities of the more important of what we might call the 
‘* personage societies,’’ as contrasted with the trivial or pre- 
tended interests of others. For there is something well 
worth while after all even in the collection of anecdotes, the 
tracing out of localities in literary allusions, the unearthing 
of remarks and fragments of correspondence, and a dozen 
other slight kinds of literary crusading. No one can deny 
that the Wordsworth Society was very largely instrumental 
in re-creating Wordsworth’s reputation, and that the gen- 
eral recognition of the intellectual substance of Shelley’s 
work owes a very great deal to the members of the Shelley 
Society. The Browning Society, with all its followers, 
great and small, cultivated a specious popularity for Brown- 


PHILOLOGICAL AND TEXT SOCIETIES 185 


ing’s work which has left a very solid and healthy residue 
of understanding appreciation, even though the popularity 
of the poet among many of his following consisted at one 
time in the mere fun of endeavoring to rationalize his 
phrasal surds. 

By the very nature of the case, however, less of the mean- 
ingless partiality inherent in such projects was to be 
found in the Wordsworth Society. This society was first 
planned in 1879,*°° and was established at Grasmere in the 
following year.®t The organization contemplated at first 
no public function, but the number of applications for 
membership induced the organizers to enlarge their original 
scheme. From the first the society possessed a social pur- 
pose, as well as that defined as its special aim: textual and 
chronological work upon the poet, and the collection of 
letters, reminiscences, and related matter of biographical 
interest. William Knight was throughout the existence of 
the society, from 1880 to 1886, its secretary and its prin- 
cipal worker. In its closing year the society numbered 
nearly three hundred and fifty members. The council of 
the society included at various times Knight, Dowden, 
Stopford Brooke, Arnold, Lowell, Browning, and Lord 
Houghton, the last four of whom were presidents of the 
body. During its life the society issued no extensive work 
upon Wordsworth’s text, its Transactions including prin- 
cipally critical, biographical, and exegetical essays and 
addresses. In addition to these, however, the volumes 
contain a good bibliography of Wordsworth? by Prof. 

80 The Transactions of the Wordsworth Society, issued in eight 
numbers from 1882 to 1887, furnish information on all important 
points in the history of the body. This information is effectually 
digested, however, in Prof. Knight’s preface to Wordsworthiana, 
1889. 

81 Wordsworthiana, v. 


82 Transactions, I, 5-15. Subsequently corrected and again pub- 
lished in vol. VII, 121-9. 


186 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


Knight, W. F. Poole’s Bibliography of Periodical Reviews 
and Criticisms of Wordsworth,** reprints of correspondence, 
and Knight’s invaluable List of Wordsworth’s Poems ar: 
ranged in chronological Order.84 The most important of 
the addresses before the society were published by Knight 
in 1889, after the dissolution of the society, as Words- 
worthiana. 

All in all, the Wordsworth Society must be said to have 
been one of the sanest and most discriminating of all the 
societies which cherished a personal cult. Among its 
members were many men of letters, scholars, and critics of 
irreproachable taste and discernment—Leslie Stephen, 
Canon Ainger, Aubrey De Vere, Professor Jebb, Richard 
Herne Shepherd, Professor Masson, Ruskin, and others 
of only less distinction. It would be difficult to accuse such 
men of having cultivated a meaningless enthusiasm; in- 
deed, the attitude of the society in fleeing as from the 
death the term ‘‘ Wordsworthian’’ is sufficiently indicative 
of the good sense that marked its purposes and proceedings. 
Its history is from beginning to end, in short, a demonstra- 
tion of the usefulness of a definite, even though a possibly 
sentimental, bond of union for the furtherance of careful 
and not over-academic study of a single literary character. 

The Browning Society was in many respects the most 
important of its type; and the most criticized and ridiculed, 
because its founders had the temerity to undertake the 
serious study of a living poet—a poet, too, who was looked 
upon by many readers and critics in England as a mere 
turner of cryptic phrases. The first meeting of this society 
was held on October 28, 1881, with three hundred in attend- 
ance, of whom seventy were members.®® The society was 

83 Ibid., V, 95-102. 

84 Ibid., VII, 55-117. 


85 Monthly abstract of Proceedings, in Browning Society’s Papers, 
pag rid BP bs 


PHILOLOGICAL AND TEXT SOCIETIES 187 


founded, apparently with Browning’s tacit acquiescence, 
by Furnivall and Miss E. H. Hickey.** From the first, great 
interest was shown in the undertaking, and within a year 
of its foundation the original membership was doubled. 
One noteworthy feature of the Browning Society was the 
number of women comprised among its members, including 
such active and enthusiastic workers as Miss Hickey, Mrs. 
Orr, and Mrs. Ireland. The plan of the New Shakspere 
Society, and later of the Shelley Society, to encourage the 
organization of branch societies wherever possible was 
adopted by the Browning Society with remarkable success, 
to the point even of establishing an esoteric vogue which 
extended literally to the farthest corners of the English 
speaking world. 

The first number of the Browning Society’s Papers in- 
cluded Browning’s introductory essay to the spurious 
Letters of Percy Bysshe Shelley, originally published in 
1852, and the first instalment of Furnivall’s Bibliography 
of Robert Browning.®” Beginning with the second number, 
the Papers reflected the activities of the members in criti- 
cism, exposition, and illustration of the poet’s works. 
Among the best known contributors were James Thomson, 
Walter Raleigh, Arthur Symons, C. H. Herford, Furnivall, 
and William M. Rossetti; writers less known outside the 
exclusive realm of Browning study were J. T. Nettleship, 
Edward Berdoe, Helen J. Ormerod, and Mrs. Alexander 
Ireland. 

Plans for a number of special publications appeared at 
an early date. Thomas J. Wise was to undertake a lexicon 
or concordance to Browning’s works, but this was aban- 

86 Ibid. 

87 Furnivall’s ‘‘Forewords’’ contain a characteristic division of 


Browning’s works into four ‘‘periods,’’ with an interesting anticipa- 
tion of a fifth. 


188 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


doned for lack of funds.** An interesting proposal from 
Hiram Corson to reprint the Latin and Italian documents 
which formed the foundation for the story of The Ring and 
the Book was relinquished only upon Browning’s with- 
drawal of his permission to print ‘‘the book.’’’® Mrs. Orr 
was also to undertake a cheap primer; but this project was 
taken over by the Bells,®° who issued in 1885 her Handbook 
to Browning’s Works, a much larger book than the society 
had looked for. Mrs. Orr’s Handbook was distributed to 
the members of the society, as were a number of trade 
publications on Browning, including Arthur Symons’s 
Introduction to the Works of Robert Browning, and 
Sharp’s Life of Browning; the writers of most of the 
volumes distributed in this way were themselves members 
of the society. The only book outside the Papers which 
was issued for the Browning Society alone was the fac- 
simile reprint of the excessively scarce Pauline, which was 
delivered to the members in 1887. The reprint of the 
prose Infe of Strafford was issued through arrangement 
with a Boston publisher. 

The entertainments and plays offered by the society were 
interesting side-issues of its work. The plays produced 
were In a Balcony, A Blot in the ’Scutcheon, Colombe’s 
Birthday, and Strafford. The last of these was given in 
1888, after which it was decided that the expense of pro- 
duction was scarcely justified, in view of more pressing 
obligations. 

Until this year the society’s history was apparently one 
of continually growing success, the membership having 
risen in seven years to something over two hundred and 
fifty. There was from the beginning, however, some differ- 

88 First Report of the Browning Society’s Committee, 1882, 2; 
Second Report, 1883, xii. 

89 First Report, 3; Third Report, xxi. 

90 First Report, 3. 


PHILOLOGICAL AND TEXT SOCIETIES 189 


ence of opinion as to how long the body should continue 
in existence. Mrs. Orr suggested in 1883 that it should be 
closed in five years; this Furnivall stoutly opposed, and 
his views were supported by a vote on the question.®** In 
1888 EK. C. Gonner moved the dissolution of the society 
forthwith, as he was dissatisfied with its want of critical 
aim, the missionary character of its work, and the growing 
tendency to theological discussion. Gonner’s motion was 
seconded by Bernard Shaw, and was followed by very 
heated discussion, in which Furnivall gave it as his con- 
viction that ‘‘the society should not be wound up, and that 
this meeting should say distinctly that the time had not 
even come for asking the members’ opinion about it.’’% 
The conclusion from the debate was that the society should 
move out of the theological rut and should devote itself 
more seriously to critical and expository work. Upon the 
vote, only one member, J. Dykes Campbell, supported the 
sponsors for the motion; there seems to be some significance, 
however, in the fact that the three who stood together were 
all members of the society’s Committee. In 1889 there was 
a sharp decline in the recorded membership of the society, 
which was given then as two hundred; this decrease in the 
membership had its effect upon all the interests of the 
society.°* Browning’s death, at the very close of this year, 
could not fail, under these circumstances, to mean for the 
society either of two things: resurrection, or calamity. It 
proved to mean the latter. In spite of the natural appear- 
ance of a reawakened interest in Browning’s work, the 
society was evidently doomed. At three meetings following 
close upon the death of the poet there were no papers pre- 
sented. It was resolved in the next year, 1891, that the 

91 Browning Society’s Papers, Pt. IV, 83*. 

92 Ibid., Pt. X, 274*-280*. 

93 Highth Annual Report, xxxilii. 


190 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


society should be discontinued after 1892.°* Four years 
later the last echo of its activity was heard when Thomas J. 
Wise issued in the name of the Committee a call for two 
years’ subscriptions from former members for the purpose 
of publishing a bibliography, a collection of letters, and 
Part VI of the Papers, which had been due for several 
years. Evidently there was not sufficient response to this 
appeal to enable the Committee to conclude the society’s 
publications and announce its existence as formally closed. 

The effect of Scotch sentiment in reviving and sustaining 
a hearty interest in Scottish literary antiquity, which we 
have already seen reflected in the accomplishments of the 
Bannatyne, the Maitland, the Abbotsford, and the Hunter- 
ian Clubs, is seen in its most gratifyingly practical aspect in 
the Scottish Text Society, founded in 1882.°° The organizers 
of this society whose names have been identified most con- 
tinuously with the scholarly traditions of the nineteenth 
century were Aeneas J. G. Mackay, Masson, Skeat, Thomas 
Graves Law, and Sir James Murray. In its very earliest 
years the society received a support that the Early English 
Text Society, whose publications, it must be assumed, 
should have appealed to a much larger number of readers, 
has scarcely surpassed even at the present day. That the 
Seottish Text Society should have begun its existence with 
three hundred members, while the Early English Text 
Society began with considerably less than half that number, 
and that the present membership of the Scottish society 
should exceed that of its sister organization by about one 
hundred and fifty, although the society 1s actually eighteen 
years younger, are both facts that excite questions. This 
marked difference in the amount of interest shown in the 

94 Tenth Annual Report, ix—x. 

95 For information relative to the history of the Scottish Text 


Society I am largely indebted to Mr. W. T. Dickson, Honorary Secre- 
tary of the Society. 


PHILOLOGICAL AND TEXT SOCIETIES 191 


schemes for the revival of the literary past of the two 
nations is probably explained in part by the real affection 
on the part of Scotsmen for all that the language and liter- 
ature of the nation have meant to it, the like of which is 
assuredly not to be found south of the Cheviot Hills. It is 
probably to be explained to some degree, too, by the more 
liberal and unautocratic administration of the Scottish 
Text Society. On this point there are some marked differ- 
ences in the government of the two societies which it is 
worth while to point out. 

The Early English Text Society is still, as we have seen,*® 
governed by a self-continuing council, in whose hands the 
entire administration of the society is held; its members 
have no voice in the selection of texts, and no voting 
powers of any sort. In the Scottish Text Society, on the 
other hand, the council is elective, going out by rotation; 
this insures the expression of the will of the members in 
the administration of the society without sacrificing the 
advantage of a relatively permanent executive establish- 
ment. In addition, in the Scottish Text Society the opin- 
ions and criticisms of members on the proposed publica- 
tions are invited, and its fiscal accounts are published. 
There can be little question, it would seem, then, that an 
administrative program of this kind is more effective and 
more generally to be approved than one in which the name 
of a society may be utilized, as it has been utilized at 
times, to carry forward what is ostensibly a collective 
scheme upon lines of personal preference. A further rea- 
son for the larger success of the Scottish body may lie in 
the fact that its first and plainest function was the reprint- 
ing of a series of literary monuments acquaintance with 
which has been part of the culture of every representative 
Scotchman, while the English society was to undertake the 


96 Ante, 163. 


192 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


publication of a number of works of distinctly inferior im- 
portance, many of which were practically unreadable by 
anyone not specially trained in an unspoken tongue. An- 
other consideration which may in part account for the 
better support for the Scottish Text Society is that, with 
a proper Scotch recognition of what is at least proverbially 
a proper Scotch characteristic, the Society gives its sub- 
seribers extremely good book value for their guinea a year 
of subscription. 

Since its organization the Scottish Text Society has pub- 
lished sixty-three numbers, comprising the works of Dun- 
bar, Henryson, Ninian Winzet, Mure of Rowallan, and 
Alexander Montgomerie, the poems of Alexander Scott and 
Alexander Hume, Blind Harry’s Wallace, James I’s Kingis 
Quar, Sir Tristrem, George Buchanan’s vernacular writ- 
ings, Barbour’s Bruce, the Gude and Godlie Ballatis, 
Bellenden’s Livy, Wyntoun’s Chronicle, six volumes of 
saints’ legends, four volumes of Satirical Poems of the 
Reformation, the histories of Lindesay of Pittscottie and 
Bishop Lesley, Lancelot of the Laik, and William Geddie’s 
Bibliography of Middle Scots Poets. 

The Shelley Society, founded at London in 1886,°" had 
aims and working methods generally similar to those of 
the Browning Society. The bulk of its published work con- 
sisted of a valuable series of textual reprints, from early 
editions and manuscripts. The plan of the Shelley Society, 
it seems, was the outcome of a proposal made to Furnivall 
by Henry Sweet that he should found such a body. Furni- 
vall jumped at the suggestion, and the exact words of his 
reply, as he repeated them to the members of the society at 
its first meeting, giving as they did a glimpse of Furni- 
vall’s self-confident enthusiasm, formed the theme of a very 

97 The first three years of the society’s history are covered in the 


Note-Book of the Shelley Society ... Vol. I, Part I [all published], 
London, 1888. 


PHILOLOGICAL AND TEXT SOCIETIES 193 


clever and amusing bit of quizzing by Andrew Lang in the 
Saturday Review for March 18, 1886.°° It was considered 
when the society was inaugurated that ten years would 
suffice to accomplish all its purposes, and as part of its 
program, it was decided to follow the plan of the New 
Shakspere and Browning Societies of furthering the influ- 
ence of its work by the establishment of as many branch 
societies as possible, which should maintain an occasional 
correspondence with the London body. 

One of the earliest projects of the Shelley Society, and 
one which met with the bitterest opposition from many of the 
earnest defenders of the national morality, was a dramatic 
production of The Cenci; in fact, this was one of the 
declared objects of the society at the date of its foundation. 
The performance, in 1886, was of course, because of the pro- 
hibitions of the censor, a private one, Miss Alma Murray 
playing in the principal role.®® In the same year the society 
produced Hellas, but naturally with much less comment, 
either favorable or adverse. 

The publications of the Shelley Society were to follow 
the arrangement of those of the New Shakspere Society in 
a serial division, in this case into four parts, including 

98 ‘¢ “By Jove, I will; he was my father’s friend!’ Thus Dr. 
Furnivall, in choice blank verse, replied when he was asked by Mr. 
Sweet (Sweet of the pointed and envenomed pen, wherewith he pricks 
the men who not elect him a Professor, as he ought to be), ’twas 
thus, we say, that Furnivall replied to the bold question asked by 
bitter Sweet. ‘And what that question?’ Briefly, it was this— 
‘Why do not you, who start so many things, societies for poets live 
and dead, why do not you a new communion found—Shelley Society’ 
might be the name—where men might worry over Shelley’s bones?’ 
‘By Jove, I will; he was my father’s friend,’ said Furnivall; and 
lo, the thing was done!’’—and much more in the same strain. 

99 Comments covering the whole history of the staging of The 
Cenci, from the first notices of the proposal to the criticisms of the 


performance, may be found in the Shelley Society’s Note Book, 
39-93. 


14 


194 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


respectively the Papers of the Society, fac-similes of the 
manuscripts and early editions of the poet, memorials, and 
bibliographical works. The Second Series, as it actually 
appeared, included some volumes which were not fac- 
similes, however; no volumes were published in the Third 
Series; and eventually an Extra Series was undertaken in 
order to hasten the publication of volumes which could not 
be printed immediately from the available funds of the 
society. Furnivall did none of the editorial work of the 
Shelley Society; in the production of the texts of the 
Second Series Thomas J. Wise was by far the most active 
of the members; Buxton Forman contributed occasional 
volumes, and Bertram Dobell, Dowden, Stopford Brooke, 
and T. W. Rolleston lent a hand in others. It is doubtful 
whether the reprinting of the Shelley Society texts was of 
at all the same degree of usefulness as it usually is in 
societies which give their attention to more remote periods. 
It is probably not too much to say that there is not the 
same field for this sort of labor upon Shelley as there might 
be upon earlier authors, exposed to the uncertainties of 
manuscript publication and very careless printing. Out- 
side of the texts, the publications of the society were not 
of specially great importance, since William M. Rossetti’s 
Memoir of Shelley and Browning’s Essay on Percy Bysshe 
Shelley were not originally issued for the society. The 
serial arrangement, which was designed to form an effec- 
tive classification for the publications, as a matter of fact 
turned out to be cumbersome and misleading, as none of 
the series was completed, and hiatuses occur in all of those 
in which any volumes appeared. 

The Shelley Society continued in active existence until 
1892, gathering in this period of six years a large amount 
of material valuable to the Shelley student, but accomplish- 
ing less, probably, than it had intended in the direction of 


PHILOLOGICAL AND TEXT SOCIETIES 195 


encouraging a more general interest in Shelley and his 
writings. It was, in fact, probably the case with the Shelley 
Society, as with most others of its class, that its benefits 
were confined in the main to its own members. 

The remaining years of the nineteenth century produced 
no new literary societies of wide prominence. Since 1900, 
however, two or three important organizations have begun 
with promise, one of which has also closed its career. 

An organization of unique interest among English learned 
societies is the British Academy. When in 1899 there was 
established the International Association of Academies, it 
was urged by the newly instituted body that steps should 
be taken toward corporate representation of the branches 
of study not dealt with by the Royal Society. The Royal 
Society itself, therefore, made overtures to a number of 
representative scholars; and at a conference which followed 
it was decided that the establishment of an entirely new 
academy would be more effective than a federation of 
societies whose interests lay within the unrepresented fields. 
The Royal Society, however, was unwilling to carry further 
its initial effort; so those who had received the Royal Soci- 
ety’s first communication undertook the steps toward 
organization upon their own responsibility. In 1901 a 
meeting was held at which it was resolved: ‘‘It is desirable 
that a society representative of historical, philosophical, 
and philological studies be formed on conditions which will 
satisfy the requirements of the International Association 
of Academies,’’*°° and invitations for membership in the 
British Academy for the Promotion of Historical, Philo- 
sophical, and Philological Studies were soon afterward sent 
to a number of prominent scholars in these branches. The 
Academy held its first meeting in 1901, and received a 
royal charter in the following year. The names upon the 


100 Proceedings of the British Academy, 1903-1904, ix. 


196 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


original list of fellows which should particularly interest 
us were E. Maunde Thompson, A. W. Ward, Gollancz, 
Murray, Skeat, Leslie Stephen, and Whitley Stokes; there 
were subsequently added within the year A. H. Firth, 
Furnivall, W. P. Ker, W. R. Morfill, A. 8. Napier, and 
Joseph Wright, and in later years A. C. Bradley, Henry 
Bradley, W. J. Courthope, Andrew Lang, Sidney Lee, and 
George FE’. Warner. 

The work of the British Academy in its special fields was 
to be prosecuted through the activities of Sectional Com- 
mittees ;*° and a point of interest in its intellectual out- 
look was the early announcement of the policy of avoiding 
the presumption of acting as in a position of scholarly 
authority.*°? In relation to the special field of English 
scholarship, the Academy had at the time of its foundation 
no specific plan, beyond the encouragement of the pro- 
grams of linguistic and literary research already on foot.1% 
Since the establishment of the Academy, the fellows chosen 
to represent English philological scholarship have presented 
to the meetings of the body valuable monographs upon 
diverse subjects; but the Academy has so far undertaken 
no comprehensive work in this field. 

The Early English Drama Society, apparently less an 
actual association than a proprietary name, was founded 
by John S. Farmer in 1905, ‘‘to provide a corpus of early 
English dramatic literature, commencing with the transi- 
tion period between interlude, comedy, and tragedy,’’?4 
and also to re-issue book and manuscript rarities in fac- 
simile reprints. The society published between 1905 and 
1908 a series of thirteen volumes of Early English Drama- 
tists in modernized spelling, comprising the complete works 

101 Ibid., 3. 

102 Ibid., 9. 


103 Tbid., 11. 
104 The Early English Drama Society, [Announcement, 1905], 1. 


PHILOLOGICAL AND TEXT SOCIETIES 197 


of John Heywood, and a practically complete body of pre- 
Elizabethan moralities, interludes, comedies, and tragedies, 
both well and little known, and containing also an extra 
volume of discoveries, ‘‘Zost’’ Tudor Plays. A second 
series of twelve volumes of early Elizabethan plays was 
planned and announced to succeed the published series, but 
the society closed before this was set on foot. The dissolu- 
tion of the organization was probably hastened by a scath- 
ing review of its first publications in the Academy for 
March 24, 1906,7° a review which questioned both the good 
faith of the organizers and the scholarly character of their 
texts. Asa result of this criticism, four of the six honorary 
vice-presidents withdrew from the society. Setting aside 
the personal questions connected with the break-up of the 
organization, it must be said that the society had done little 
more than to print in a new form a number of plays already 
generally available, the three volumes of John Heywood, 
for example, having been issued originally by the Spenser 
Society, two even of the three ‘‘ Lost’? Tudor Plays having 
been already published by the Malone Society, and a large 
number of the remaining plays having appeared in previous 
collections, particularly in Carew Hazlitt’s Dodsley.1% 
The Early English Drama Society also published a Fac- 
simile Series of early manuscripts and rare printed plays, 
and a series of Musewm Dramatists, which was simply a 
selection of separate plays from the Karly English Drama- 
tists series, printed off in compact volumes as students’ 
texts. 

One of the most productive societies of the present day is 
the Malone Society, founded in London in 1906 through the 

105 March 24, 1906, 280-1. See also The Academy, for March 31, 
April 7 and 28 (315, 323, and 338-9). 

106 From Hazlitt’s Dodsley, by the way, the Academy reviewer 


intimates, Hickscorner was apparently reprinted; and not from the 
text of Wynkyn de Worde’s edition. 


198 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


recommendations of a committee consisting of F. 8. Boas, 
E. K. Chambers, R. B. McKerrow, A. W. Pollard, and 
W. W. Greg.?*? Mr. Chambers has been the president of 
the society since its foundation, and Mr. Greg the general 
editor of its series of publications. The society has been 
publishing during its five years of existence, at the uniform 
rate of five a year, a series of type facsimile reprints 
of Tudor plays, in the format of the familiar Eliza- 
bethan quarto. It has also published every year one num- 
ber of its Collections, consisting mainly of dramatic frag- 
ments and theatrical records, and paged continuously to 
form a volume of four or five numbers. In its productivity, 
its care in the preparation of texts, and in the charm of its 
books as books, the Malone Society has set a standard of 
efficient and tasteful publication which has already placed 
it in a position of unusual and well deserved distinction. 
The English Association was founded in January, 1907, 
‘“‘to enforce the truth ... that the accurate and pliant 
writing of English, the correct speaking of English, and the 
just appreciation of English literature are not less impor- 
tant acquirements than any other that can come of educa- — 
tional training.’’4°> The incidental purposes of the society 
are ‘‘to afford opportunities of intercourse and cooperation 
among all who are interested in English language and liter- 
ature; to discuss methods of teaching English and the co- 
relation of school and university work; and to encourage 
and facilitate advanced study in English language and 
literature.’’ The project was suggested by a group of sec- 
ondary school masters; and from the beginning the program 
of the society has been mainly educational. Its publications 
so far have been its Essays and Studies, which have ap- 


107 Athenaeum, October 20, 1906, 488. Mr. Greg has been kind 
enough to send me information relative to the organization of the 
society. 

108 Academy, January 19, 1907, 71-2. 


PHILOLOGICAL AND TEXT SOCIETIES 199 


peared annually for the last three years, and which have 
included papers and addresses by Henry Bradley, W. P. 
Ker, George Saintsbury, F. S. Boas, A. C. Bradley, and 
other prominent scholars and educators. 

It would be impossible to cover in detail the work of a 
number of minor literary societies which have published 
material of great potential value to students. Among the 
great number of such societies, however, may be mentioned 
the Manchester Literary Club, founded in 1861, and issuing 
a series of annual 7’ransactions in which contributions have 
been printed from a group of workers of some note outside 
of the society itself, among them George Milner, W. EH. A. 
Axon, and J. H. Nodal. The Scottish Literary Club issued 
in 1877 and 1892 two publications of local literary 
interest ;*°° and the Paisley Burns Club, likewise, between 
1878 and 1881 published three volumes of local eighteenth 
century authors. The Wiclif Society, organized by Furni- 
vall in 1882, is still engaged upon the publication of the 
body of Wiclif’s Latin works. The Bronté Society, of 
Bradford, has led since 1894 an active existence, publish- 
ing in its annual Transactions a number of good Bronté 
items, including a well executed bibliography in two parts. 
The Rymour Club, founded at Edinburgh in 1903, has 
issued a few numbers of useful records of purely popular 
literary material. Local philological societies are of course 
rarer than local literary societies. Two, however, seem 
deserving of special notice. The Cambridge Philological 
Society, composed of trained scholars connected with the 
University, has printed in its Transactions since 1881 notes 
of a number of valuable contributions on phonology, ety- 
mology, and the like. The Yorkshire Dialect Society, organ- 
ized in 1886, has done a commendable amount of serious 
work in local linguistic study. 


109 ©, §. Terry, op. cit., 160. 


200 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


A few societies which have not issued regular publica- 
tions have nevertheless exerted a perceptible influence upon 
literary scholarship; examples of these are the Carlyle and 
Ruskin Societies—both of which were formed for the study 
of the artistic, social, and literary theories of the writers of 
their choice, rather than for objective literary study. 
Other societies of importance are the Modern Language 
Association, the Elizabethan Society, and a host of local 
Shakspere and Browning societies and the like, including 
all classes of students, and ranging over a wide scale of 
effectiveness and accomplishment. The cultural aims of 
such institutions are as a rule, however, so general or so 
vaguely defined, that to include such societies among our 
learned societies would be to test severely the elasticity of 
the term. 

It is difficult to draw definite conclusions from this his- 
torical review as to anything beyond the tangible value of 
the aid which these bodies have given to English scholar- 
ship. We have seen that the form of the society’s organi- 
zation has always been determined largely by the nature 
and the extent of its literary interests; that societies made 
up at first of mere dilettanti were replaced by associations 
of interested students whose capacities were to be measured 
by the earnest but undeveloped scholarship of the first half 
of the nineteenth century; and that these societies in turn 
died out after the middle of the century, and were suc- 
eeeded by a number of organizations established and con- 
ducted by men ripened in careful and efficient modern 
scholarship, and determined to make the entire field of 
English literature available for general study—and their 
fight has been always up-hill. The quality of the results 
obtained by these various and varied organizations has 
been affected by a number of conditions, their period, their 
personnel, the extent of popular interest in their projects, 


PHILOLOGICAL AND TEXT SOCIETIES 201 


and most of all, of course, their working efficiency. It can 
not be said that the number of any given society can be 
taken as a measure of the actual value of its work, even 
when there is no numerical limit placed upon its member- 
ship. Numbers generally means wealth, and wealth means 
opportunities for wide diffusion of the special aspect of 
culture for which the society’ stands as advocate and 
agent; but the Early English Text Society, which from the 
standpoint of the bulk and the scholarly value of its pub- 
lished product must be regarded as clearly the greatest of 
all, is in the actual number of its members still a small 
society. 

Nor can much be said in a general way as to what is the 
most effective method of organization. We:have reviewed 
all types of association, from the aristocratic club of a 
handful of members, which can make its business the sub- 
ject of an evening’s informal talk, to the large text society, 
international in its scope, with which the members have 
scarcely what might be called a speaking acquaintance. 
All these forms of organization are adapted to special pur- 
poses; each must be more or less effective in its own way. 
In general it may be said that unreasonable limitation upon 
the membership places an unnecessary restriction upon a 
society’s usefulness; on the other hand, where the object 
of the society is not merely to sell books, and where there 
is in addition a social purpose to be served, such a limita- 
tion is practically unavoidable. As to administrative 
methods, probably the most successful society is the one 
whose corporate organization does not view the members 
merely as subscribers, but as constituents, and to a certain 
extent, even as collaborators. The advantage which the 
Seottish Text Society seems to enjoy in this respect over 
the Early English Text Society has already been re- 
ferred to.11° 

110 Ante, 191-2. 


202 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


Most societies in this field, at least in England, are what 
insurance statisticians would call ‘‘bad risks.’’ To be sure, 
a few of these organizations, such as the Warton Club and 
the Shelley Society, have at their foundation placed a more 
or less definite limit upon the period of their existence. 
Others, like the Wordsworth Society and the Browning 
Society, are confined by the nature of their interests to 
relatively brief life. Causes really unconnected with the 
essential work of a society have too often cut off promi- 
nent organizations before their utility has been effectively 
realized ; this was apparently the case with the Shakespeare 
Society and the New Shakspere Society, in both of which 
the personal concerns of important members exercised a 
serious if not fatal influence upon the fortunes of the 
society. But taking all these special conditions into con- 
sideration, the fact remains that the average literary 
society may count itself fortunate if it has seen, say, its 
fifteenth anniversary. On the whole, the text societies 
may be said to have a more promising outlook for long serv- 
ice than what for want of a better term we might call the 
critical. societies. In the latter, the general indefiniteness 
of the program, the reaction in interest in the chosen sub- 
ject after a certain period of strenuous activity has been 
passed, the undue importance of personalities, big and 
little, all combine to produce friction and disarrangement 
when the machinery seems to be running most smoothly. 
In the text societies the definiteness of the program, the 
constant rate of progress, the tangible value of the product, 
may not capture the unthinking enthusiasm of a large 
number, but may be counted upon to retain the interest of 
a faithful and thoroughly appreciative few, still sufficient 
in number to make the project easily self-supporting from 
year to year. Of all the societies devoted exclusively to 
English literary studies, the Early English Text Society 


———S 


PHILOLOGICAL AND TEXT SOCIETIES 203 


has been so far the most enduring. The Chaucer Society, 
the junior of its sister body by only four years, and the 
only society of the sort approaching the longevity of the 
Early English Text Society, was dissolved after forty-four 
years of service, having completed in this time a series of 
texts and treatises unequalled by any organization save the 
first and favorite of Furnivall’s printing societies. The 
Early English Text Society, at the close of fifty years’ 
activity, seems to have before it many years of profitable 
labor; and if the signs of its present vitality are not 
deceptive, it should live to accomplish fully one of the most 
monumental publishing projects of our age of monumental 
works—a project, in fact, paralleled only by a few series 
produced either with the aid of heavy subsidies or under 
the auspices of strong and wealthy institutions. 


CHAPTER VII 


AMERICAN SOCIETIES AND CLUBS? 


It is not to be expected that the activities of learned 
societies in the United States should produce results to be 
compared in a large way with those secured by such socie- 
ties in Great Britain. Although the work of American 
scholars upon English literature has for many years earned 
the respect of both British and Continental students, and 
although latterly American scholarship has frequently 
contributed to the publications of foreign text societies, 
isolation, special interests, the remoteness of manuscript 
material, have all provided an effective bar to extensive 
cooperative publication in this country. In addition, Eng- 
lish literary antiquity is something in which America does 
not and can not directly share; an American society for the 
publication of English texts would be, therefore, for senti- 
mental as well as geographical reasons, almost an impos- 
sibility. The history of publishing societies in the United 
States has shown that this fact is very generally appre- 
ciated; so we find the really scholarly societies working 
along lines subordinate to or collateral with the labors of 

1Two facts have made it advisable to treat our American publish- 
ing societies less in detail than English organizations of a similar 
nature. In the first place, very few of them rank in importance, 
either historically or in the extent of their production, with the Eng- 
lish societies; in the second place, the history and bibliography of 
American societies has been altogether very well done, in four works 
to which in most of this chapter, except the portion dealing with 
purely philosophical societies, I have been under continuous obligation. 
These are Growoll’s American Book Clubs, 1897, Bowker’s Publica- 
tions of Societies, 1899, Griffin’s Bibliography of American Historical 
Societies, 1907, and Thompson’s Handbook of Learned Societies and 
Institutions, 1908. 


204 


es 


SO a ee ee 


ee a een 


eee 


ah 


AMERICAN SOCIETIES AND CLUBS 205 


European scholars, or devoting their efforts to the ltera- 
ture of their own nation. With the book clubs, which to-day 
occupy a much more important place in the United States 
than in England, the case is somewhat different, for manu- 
scripts, memorabilia, curiosa of every sort, of the modern 
period, migrate much more readily than the literary treas- 
ures of medieval or Saxon England; and since at any rate 
this kind of literary material does not antedate the Ameri- 
ean civilization, it is actually more or less a part of Ameri- 
ean literary culture. Book Clubs in America, therefore,— 
and these are practically the only literary organizations 
which have produced reprints on an extensive scale—have 
drawn largely upon English literature and literary remains 
of the last three centuries, as well as upon the less promising 
field of American literature. 

Societies devoted extensively or seriously to philological 
study have been in the United States very few in number. 
The oldest of them all is the American Philological Asso- 
ciation, organized in New York in 1868 for investigation in 
the entire field of philology.? Its scholarly outlook at the 
time of its establishment was similar to that of the Philo- 
logical Society of London; but for patent reasons the 
American Association at first showed a special interest in 
aboriginal American dialects. In the early meetings of 
the Association papers upon English linguistics were not 
infrequent; at present, however, none of the English 
scholars in the Association exhibits a specially active inter- 
est in its work, though the society still includes in its 
membership many of the best known modern language stu- 
dents. The American Philological Association was affiliated 
in 1900 with the Philological Association of the Pacific 
Coast. This new section of the Association still shows an 


2 Transactions, 1869-70; App. 1-30, 1871. 
3 Transactions, XXXI (Proceedings), xxix, 1900. 


206 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


active interest in modern language studies, and many 
papers in this province are read at its annual meetings. 
The discontinuance of the American Philological Associa- 
tion’s work in modern philology must be ascribed largely to 
the appropriation of this field in 1884 by the Modern 
Language Association of America; and the reason that the 
Pacific Coast Association still continues its interest in modern 
languages is probably that the meetings of the two divisions 
of the Modern Language Association are practically inac- 
cessible to Far Western scholars. 

The American Philological Association first identified 
itself with the spelling reform movement in America 
in 1875, six years after the Philological Society had 
introduced the question in England. The provisional 
work of the Association in turn redirected attention to 
the subject in the English organization, after interest 
in it had for the time being apparently waned.® In 1883 
the two societies entered into a working agreement for 
the furtherance of spelling reform. Following up the 
initial efforts of the American Philological Association, the 
propaganda was spread by the Spelling Reform Association, 
and in 1892 the Modern Language Association approved 
the adoption of the Philological Association’s rules. The 
cause is being advanced in the United States to-day 
chiefly by the militant Simplified Spelling Board, which 
was organized in 1906 ‘‘to carry on the process of simpli- 
fication and regulation,’’’ and in England by the Sim- 
plified Spelling Society, established in 1908. After the 
problem was brought up by the members of the Philological 
Society of London, altogether the most fruitful work in this 
direction was accomplished—and is still being accom- 

4 Transactions, XXIV (Proceedings), xxxv—xxxvi, 1893. 

5 Ante, 152-4. 

§ Tbid. 

7 Simplified Spelling Board, Circular No. 16, 1907. 


AMERICAN SOCIETIES AND CLUBS 207 


plished—by American organizations. Whether this is be- 
cause of the greater activity of these societies, or the less 
strongly intrenched tradition of conservatism in the United 
States, is of course an open question. 

The Modern Language Association of America was organ- 
ized at a conference of forty modern language teachers at 
Columbia College in December, 1883.8 The first aims of 
this body were almost exclusively pedagogical. The weak- 
ening of the tradition of purely classical culture had been 
much more rapid in the United States than in England, and 
the demand for modern languages in both the cultural and 
the vocational branches of university instruction had re- 
sulted in a concentration of the attention of teachers of 
these languages upon scientific methods of teaching them. 
It was in response to the growing importance of questions 
connected with the changing order of things that these 
teachers formed their union; and for the first few years of 
the Association’s existence, therefore, it was occupied pri- 
marily with educational questions, particularly with the 
problem of standardizing requirements and instruction in 
the modern languages. Although the special interest of the 
Modern Language Association placed it for this reason in 
a position of natural opposition to the classical languages, 
the organization was as a matter of fact in its early years 
opposed to radical action in favor of substituting the mod- 
ern for the classical tongues in the university curriculum.® 

This association has from its earliest period included in 
its membership the great majority of well known American 
scholars; for although the exclusively pedagogical outlook 
was abandoned shortly after its foundation, in actual fact 
the organization is made up to-day almost entirely of mod- 
ern language teachers in the colleges and universities, in all 


8 Proceedings at New York, 1884; in Transactions, I, i-vii, 1886. 
9 Ibid., xviii—xix. 


208 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


well over a thousand. The nature of its work, however, is 
to-day quite changed: it is concerned principally with ques- 
tions of pure scholarship; and its Publications have been 
for twenty years a distinguished medium of scholarly 
communication. 

The Publications, which represent effectively the associa- 
tion’s present interests, include in the main literary and 
linguistic monographs, frequently of more considerable 
length than is generally acceptable to reviews less gener- 
ously supported. The confinement of the scholarly labor of 
the members to purely historical and commentative work 
is accounted for in large measure by the circumstances 
which naturally prevent American scholars from develop- 
ing an original tradition in English scholarship. And it 
is worth noting in passing that the conditions which limit 
the possibilities of English textual scholarship in America 
have brought it about that in this subsidiary field of scholar- 
ship there is in general a much greater productivity in the 
United States than in England. American scholars, for 
example, are maintaining a larger number of modern lan- 
guage periodicals and reviews than are to be found in Eng- 
land. The condition may also be explained in part, it is 
true, by the fact that American students have borrowed 
the monograph habit from Germany, while the parapher- 
nalia of German scholarship has not been taken over in 
England either as readily or as thankfully as in America. 

The Modern Language Association of America is now 
separated for working purposes into two divisions. In 1896 
a number of members in the Middle West, considering the 
inconvenience of attending meetings in the East, proposed 
a separate conference.*° As a result of this action, the 
Central Division of the Association was established, with 
its own officers and its own place of meeting, but using the 
Publications as its organ. 


10 Publications, XI (Proceedings), Iviii-lix, 1896. 


AMERICAN SOCIETIES AND CLUBS 209 


Out of the Modern Language Association have grown two 
independent organizations which, although they have no 
formal connection with the older society, usually for rea- 
sons of convenience hold their meetings at the place and 
time appointed for the annual meeting of the Association. 
These are the American Dialect Society and the Concord- 
ance Society, both of which have issued some valuable pub- 
lications. 

The first of these, the American Dialect Society, was orga- 
nized in 1889 for the investigation of the English dialects 
of America. Professor Child, then one of the most important 
figures in American scholarship, was its first president? 
In its first year the society numbered over two hundred 
members, well distributed throughout the country, and for 
a time there was a gratifying and continuous increase in 
membership ; but the numbers of the society are now appar- 
ently decreasing, as the last report of the society gives only 
about 150 names. The society has published since its or- 
ganization Dialect Notes, a serial devoted to dialect records 
and history, word lists, and similar material. It has also 
aimed at the publication of an American Dialect Diction- 
ary, but no definite steps have been taken toward the 
realization of this plan; and in the present state of the 
society, which is making ominous appeals for increased 
financial support, it is unlikely that the Dialect Diction- 
ary will be, for some years to come, anything more than a 
glorious hope. 

The Concordance Society, established at the annual 
meeting of the Modern Language Association in 1906, aims 
to provide subventions toward the publication of concord- 
ances and word indexes to English writers, ‘‘to formulate 
plans for the compilation of such works, and to assist in- 
tending compilers of such works with suggestions and 


11 Dialect Notes, I, 1, 1896. 
15 


210 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


advice.’”12, The Society has numbered from its organiza- 
tion about one hundred members. Its first publication 
was a Concordance to the English Poems of Thomas Gray, 
published under the editorial supervision of Albert S. 
Cook in 1908; and this work was followed in 1911 by its 
Concordance to the Poems of William Wordsworth, edited 
by Lane Cooper. The society’s method of support for such 
projects is to appropriate amounts from its income, derived 
from annual dues of five dollars, as payments to pub- 
lishers, not to compilers, toward the expenses of publica- 
tion of these works, which could not under ordinary con- 
ditions be looked upon as promising commercial ventures. 
Its work is one of the best examples of the effectiveness of 
cooperative labor and financial support for a large plan 
of publication which, however useful, it would be impos- 
sible to realize under private auspices. 

Local societies for literary study, especially of the type 
most familiar toward the end of the nineteenth century, 
have been very numerous in the United States. There 
have been, of course, many Shakspere societies in the most 
important cities; and in the eighties and nineties there was 
a rather remarkable growth, followed in most cases by a 
rapid decay, of Browning societies. Few of these local 
bodies achieved the dignity of publishing anything of per- 
manent value to literary students; but two or three merit 
special, if only passing mention. 

The Shakspere Society of Philadelphia, actually the 
oldest Shakspere Society in existence, was established in 
1851.17. Its importance is largely due to the fact that at 
an early date Horace Howard Furness became associated 
with it; it is even apparently true that the plan for Fur- 
ness’s Variorum Shakspere originated among the members 


12 The Concordance Society, Circular No, 7 [1911]. 
13 New Shakespeareana, III, 108-9, 1904. 


AMERICAN SOCIETIES AND CLUBS 211 


of this society.1* The only publications of the society are 
five brochures, two relating to its own history, and three 
of them critical essays. 

The most widely known society of this type is probably 
the Shakespeare Society of New York, established and 
incorporated in 1885.45 For the first twenty-two years of 
the society’s existence its destiny was directed by Apple- 
ton Morgan, a lawyer of local repute. Within this period 
it produced a series of publications in their bulk quite 
imposing, including the Bankside Shakespeare, a series of 
parallel reprints of quarto and First Folio texts, issued 
in twenty-one volumes from 1885 to 1906. The Bankside 
Sequel, for the reprinting of texts of which no printed 
copy exists prior to the First Folio, has supplied so far 
only a single volume. The Bankside Restoration Seres, 
designed for the reproduction of Restoration adaptations 
of Shakspere, now numbers five volumes. In addition the 
society has published twelve numbers of its Papers. Al- 
together the record of the society is readily seen to be one 
of commendable industry; in particular, its series of re- 
prints have without doubt a very definite potential value ; yet 
it must be said that the organization does not possess the 
scholarly importance which the bulk of its publications 
would lead one to assume. From 1889 to 1893 it con- 
ducted a periodical called Shakespeareana, and from 1902 
on, its successor, New Shakespeareana. In these two pub- 
lications, as well as in some of its Papers, are to be found 
the society’s contributions to Shakspere criticism; and 
this criticism, it must be admitted, tends in the main to be 
rather provincial. Moreover, the attitude of some of the 
most influential members of the society toward the criticism 
and scholarship represented in the work of other institu- 
tions and other individuals, is generally a little over- 


14 New Shakespeareana, II, 30, 1903. 
15 Shakespeareana, II, 264, 1885. 


212 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


confident, and in controversy almost always needlessly 
provocative. The real importance of the society, therefore, 
lies rather in its published reprints than in its larger but 
rather careless and whimsical body of critical work. 

Among the numerous Browning clubs which sprang up 
in America after the establishment of Furnivall’s Brown- 
ing Society, only one, the Boston Browning Society, has 
published any work of serious value to students of the 
poet. The Boston Browning Society Papers, published in 
1900, and covering the activities of the society from 1886 
to 1897, included contributions from Thomas Wentworth 
Higginson, George Willis Cooke, and other local scholars 
of repute. 

Book clubs came into vogue in America during the 
period when their popularity in Great Britain was begin- 
ning to wane, when, in fact, the famous Scottish clubs 
were struggling for continued existence. These American 
book clubs possess naturally less interest and significance 
for the student of the broader field of English literature 
than their English predecessors. This is true in part be- 
cause the English field has usually been regarded in the 
United States as belonging for reasons of sentiment to 
English scholars; and in part because the strong national- 
ism, indeed localism, of most of our American organiza- 
tions has without doubt directed their activities into lines © 
mainly of national interest. Moreover, since the history of 
early American literature is in the main representative of 
an intellectual tradition which has been in the past, and is 
therefore likely to continue to be, of small interest save 
to the ‘‘good American,’’ it is quite apparent that the dearth 
of important literary publications among American print- 
ing clubs is emphasized by the relatively slight value of 
much of their published product. There are, however, 
three notable exceptions to this rule: the Grolier Club, the 
Dunlap Society, and the Bibliophile Society. 


AMERICAN SOCIETIES AND CLUBS 213 


The best known among American book clubs is the 
Grolier Club, organized in 1884 by a group of men ‘‘inter- 
ested in the arts entering into the production of books.’’ 
The distinguished press-maker and collector, Robert Hoe, 
was the first president of the club.1° The organization 
was formed with the idea that a union of book lovers and 
book makers could accomplish much for bibliophile inter- 
ests in America; with so clear and practical an aim, it was 
inevitable that it should take its place among the makers 
of tradition in this field. 

Because of its consecration to the bibliophile cause, how- 
ever, some of its numerous publications in the domain of 
English letters possess no special merit beyond their exqui- 
site quality as books; such are the issues of Fitzgerald’s 
Rubdiyat, Irving’s Knickerbocker History of New York, 
Charles Reade’s Peg Woffington, and Milton’s Areopagi- 
tica. In a class of real scholarly distinction, however, are 
Richard de Bury’s Philobiblon, The Poems of John Donne, 
with emendations by Lowell, Two Note Books of Thomas 
Carlyle, Copeland’s translation of the History of Helyas, 
from Wynkin de Worde’s edition of 1512, and two important 
bibliographical works: a Catalogue of original and early 
Editions of some of the poetical and prose Works of Eng- 
lish Writers from Langland to Wither, published in 1893, 
and three volumes of similar nature covering the period 
from Wither to Prior, published in 1905. The catalogues 
of the club’s occasional exhibitions also contain something 
of distinct value to either dilettante or student. So far 
these have included exhibitions in honor of Dryden in 
1900, Franklin in 1906, Milton in 1908, Johnson in 1909, 
Pope in 1911, Thackeray in 1912, and Dickens in 1913. 

The Dunlap Society was established in 1885 at the sug- 
gestion of Professor Brander Matthews for the purpose of 


16 Brander Matthews, Bookbindings Old and New, with an Account 
of the Grolier Club, 1895, 302. 


914 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


preserving and publishing material pertaining to Ameri- 
can dramatic writing and the American stage.17 The 
society was inactive from 1891 to 1896, and its printing 
has again been suspended since 1902. Its publications 
consist entirely of American dramatic literature and theat- 
rical records. The First Series of fifteen volumes, running 
from 1887 to 1891, included four early American plays, an 
equal number of dramatic biographies, and a number of 
papers and addresses relating to the American stage. The 
New Series of the society’s publications began with its re- 
organization, in 1896, after five years of inactivity. In 
this series appeared in 1900 two valuable bibliographies, 
Oscar Wegelin’s Early American Plays, 1714-1830, and 
Robert F. Roden’s Later American Plays, 1831-1900. All 
the remaining volumes in this series of fifteen were con- 
cerned with American stage history and dramatic biog- 
raphy. The Dunlap Society possesses, apparently, a unique 
interest as the only organization which has devoted itself 
exclusively to the entire domain of a nation’s dramatic 
literature and history. 

The Bibliophile Society, founded in 1901 in Boston, 
‘‘for the purpose of the study and promotion of the arts 
pertaining to fine book making and illustrating,’’** has in 
its twelve years of life distributed to its members an im- 
posing series of publications, many of them possessing great 
and at times unique importance to students of English and 
American literature. The first president of the society was 
Nathan Haskell Dole. Its first issue was four volumes of 
Horace’s Odes and Epodes, with a selection of the best 
English versions; and in its second year it produced an 
elaborate edition of Dibdin’s Bibliomania. The earliest 
volume of significance to the English scholar was a fac- 
simile reprint of Rossetti’s Henry the Leper, a paraphrase 


17 Growoll, American Book Clubs, 1897, 278-80. 
18 Tenth Year Book, 1911, 171. 


AMERICAN SOCIETIES AND CLUBS 215 


from Hartmann von Aue. In 1906 was published a mem- 
orable edition of The Letters of Charles Lamb, in five 
volumes, and in the following year three volumes of un- 
published manuscripts by Thoreau. In 1907 appeared 
The Romance of Mary Wollstonecroft Shelley, John 
Howard Payne, and Washington Irving, from a series of 
letters, and later The Private Correspondence of Charles 
Dickens and Maria Beadnell and The Dickens-Kolle Corre- 
spondence. The society’s latest publication is its Note 
Books of Percy Bysshe Shelley, edited in three volumes 
by Buxton Forman. In addition, the regular publications 
have included unpublished poems by Bryant, Thoreau, 
and Keats, letters from Thomas Love Peacock, and unpub- 
lished orations by John Fiske, the ‘‘Geddes Burns’’, and 
a reprint of Thoreau’s Walden, from the manuscript, con- 
taining many points of difference from the trade edition. 
In the Year Books of the society are also preserved many 
valuable pieces, including unpublished fragments by 
Whittier, Longfellow, Thoreau, Bayard Taylor, Scott, 
Cooper, and Tom Moore. This survey of the issues of the 
Bibliophile Society shows it to be one of the most impor- 
tant clubs publishing English texts. Indeed, considering 
its brief existence, its industry and the scholarly character 
and the rarity of the originals of its productions place it 
second to no body of its kind. 

In the United States there have been for more than a 
half century a number of clubs, some of them consisting 
of no more than four or five members, which have pub- 
lished occasionally works of literary interest. The major- 
ity of these strictly private clubs have put their attention 
principally upon local American history and literature; 
but the publications of a few of them possess a broader 
significance.’® The earliest of these, the Bradford Club, 


19 For the history of most of these smaller institutions see Growoll’s 
American Book Clubs, 1897, and Thompson’s Handbook of Learned 
Societies and Institutions, 1908. 


216 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


founded in New York in 1857, issued three years later The 
Croakers of Halleck and Drake, a series of satires con- 
tributed in 1811 to the Evening Post of New York. The 
Naragansett Club, of Providence, sent out between 1865 
and 1874 six volumes by or relating to Roger Williams. 
The Club of Odd Volumes, organized in Boston in 1886, 
published from 1894 to 1898 five volumes of Early Amer- 
ican Poetry and some useful histories of the Massachu- 
setts press and book-trade. 

The Rowfant Club, established in Cleveland in 1892, 
has published a number of works in English literature, 
most of them more noteworthy for bibliophile excellence 
than for original or critical value. Among its issues are 
a volume of Drake’s poems, Landor’s Letter to Emerson, 
Frederick lLocker’s Rowfant Rhymes, and Franklin’s 
Autobiography. In a class of superior merit, however, 
are Samuel Arthur Jones’s Bibliography of Henry David 
Thoreau, 1894, Lowell’s Lectures on English Poets, deliv- 
ered in 1855 before the Lowell Institute, and published by 
the club in 1897, and W. H. Cathcart’s chia of 
the Works of Nathaniel Hawthorne, 1905. 

The Society of the Duodecimos, a club of twelve mem- 
bers organized in 1893, issued in 1897 an important edi- 
tion by Charles Eliot Norton of The Poems of Mrs. Anne 
Bradstreet. The Caxton Club of Chicago, formed two 
years later, published in 1898, Some Letters of Edgar Allan 
Poe to E. H. N. Patterson. The Club for Colonial Re- 
prints, founded at Providence in 1903, has issued two 
small Freneau and Roger Williams items. Besides these 
minor book clubs, other kinds of organizations have ren- 
_ dered service of more or less magnitude to English studies 
in America; for example the Acorn Club, with a series in 
Colonial history and bibliography, the Princeton Histor- 
ical Association, with its three volumes of The Poems of 


AMERICAN SOCIETIES AND CLUBS Si 


Philip Freneau (1902-1907), and the Bibliographical Soci- 
ety of America, with many papers in literary bibliography. 
In addition to these must be mentioned the American 
Historical Association and a number of local historical 
societies in the East, most notably the Prince Society and 
the Massachusetts Historical Society, which have included 
in their publications from time to time occasional exam- 
ples of early American literature or historical documents 
which possess a value for literary students. 

It will be seen from the present brief review of Ameri- 
ean literary organizations that the place of learned socie- 
ties in the traditions of American literary scholarship is 
relatively unimportant. The Modern Language Associa- 
tion only has produced work comparable in volume and 
significance to the productions of English learned socie- 
ties. The book clubs, however, have played, and are likely 
to continue to play, an important part in the furtherance 
of literary culture; in fact they compare favorably with 
their great predecessors in England and Scotland. AI- 
together, America’s part in this special movement is very 
creditable. . 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


(Prospectuses, announcements, advertisements, and annual re- 
ports of societies have been omitted from this bibliography. 
Where such leaflets have furnished information of substantial 
value, foot-note references to them have been given in full. See 
infra, Aelfric Society, Ballad Society, Browning Society, Con- 
cordance Society, Early English Dialect Society, Early English 
Drama Society, Early English Text Society, English Historical 
Society, Hakluyt Society, Hunterian Club, Philological Society, 
Royal Society of Literature, Scottish Text Society, Shakespeare 
Society, Simplified Spelling Board, and Society of Antiquaries.) 


American Book Prices Current .... 18 v., New York, 1895- 
1912. 

(AmeERICAN DtAteEct Socrtetry.) Dialect Notes. Published by 
the American Dialect Society. 3 v., Norwood and New 
Haven, 1896—[1912]. 

AMERICAN PHILOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION. Transactions ,... 43 
v., Hartford, ete., 1871-1912. (Later volumes have title 
Transactions and Proceedings.) 

ARNOLD, Martruew. The Literary Influence of Academies. In 
Essays in Criticism, London, 1895. 

Asser. Life of King Alfred together with the Annals of Saint 
Neots... . Edited ... by William Henry Stevenson. 
Oxford, 1904. 

AUBREY, JOHN. ‘Brief Lives, chiefly of Contemporaries, set 
down ... between... 1669 & 1696. Edited by Andrew 
Clark. 2 v., Oxford, 1898. 

AvuBreY, JoHN (Editor). Letters [from the Bodleian] written by 
eminent Persons in the seventeenth and eighteenth Centuries 
, 2 v. in 3, London, 1813. 

Bacon, Sir Francis. The Advancement of Learning. Edited 
by William Aldis Wright .... 2d Ed., Oxford, 1873. 
Bacon, Sir Francis. The New Atlantis.... Hdited... by G. 
C. Moore Smith. Cambridge, 1900. 

218 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 219 


(Bate, JOHN.) A letter from Bishop Bale to Archbishop 
Parker. Communicated by H. R. Luard.... Cambridge 
Antiquarian Communications, III, 157-73. Cambridge, 
1879. 

(BANNATYNE CuuB.) Adversaria. Notices illustrative of some 
of the earlier works printed for the Bannatyne Club. 
[Edited by David Laing.] Edinburgh, 1867. 

BarTHOLD, F. W. Geschichte der Fruchtbringenden Gesellschaft 

Berlin, 1848. 

BIBLIOPHILE Society. First [Second, ete.] Year Book. 11 v., 
[Boston], [1902]-1912. 

Bircou, THomas. The History of the Royal Society of London 
for Improving of Natural Knowledge .... 4 v., London, 
1756-7. 

Boun, Henry G. Appendix relating to the Books of Intterary 
and Scientific Societies. (Vol. 6 of William Thomas 
Lowndes’ Bibliographer’s Manual of English LInterature.) 
London, 1864. 

Boston Brownina Society. Papers ... 1886-1897. New 
York, 1900. 

BOSWELL, JAMES. Life of Johnson... . Edited by George 
Birkbeck Hill. 6 v., Oxford, 1887. 

Bowker, R. R. Publications of Societies; a Provisional List of 
the Publications of American Scientific, Literary, and other 
Societies .... New York, 1899. 

Boye, Rosert. Works. To which is prefixed the Life of the 
Author. A new Edition. 6 v., London, 1772. 

BRABROOK, Epwarp WILLIAM. On the Fellows of the Society of 
Antiquaries who have held the Office of Director. Archaeo- 
logia, LXII, 59-80, 1910. 

British AcADEMy. Proceedings ..., 1903-1904. London, n. d. 

British Museum. Catalogue of Printed Books; Academies, 
Part I [complete in this part]. London, 1885. Supplement. 
London, 1900. 

Brownine Society. Papers.... Nos. 1-13 [No. 6 not issued], 
in 3 v., London, 1881-91. 

Burton, JoHN Huu. The Book-Hunter Etc. New York, 1883. 


220 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


Caedmon’s Metrical Paraphrase of Parts of the Holy Scriptures 
[Edited by] Benjamin Thorpe. Society of Anti- 

quaries, 1832. 
(CAMDEN, WiuuIAM.) Gulielmi Camdeni et Illustrium Virorum 


Epistolae .... Praemittitur G. Camdeni Vita, Scriptore 
Thoma Smitho.... Londini, 1691. 

CAMPBELL, JOHN, Lorp. The Lives of the Lord Chancellors and 
Keepers of the Great Seal of England.... 8 v., London, 
1846-69. 

Carew, RicHarp. The Survey of Cornwall.... With the Life 
of the Author... [by Pierre des Maizeaux]. London, 1723. 

CHALMERS, GrorGE. The Life of Thomas Ruddiman.... Lon- 
don, 1794. 

CHAMBERLAYNE, Epwarp. Angliae Notitiae or The Present 
State of England .... Continued by his Son, John Cham- 
berlayne.... 21st Ed., London, 1704. 


CHATTERTON, THOMAS. Poetical Works. With an Essay on the 
Rowley Poems by W. W. Skeat. 2 v., London, 1875. 

(CLERK, Sir JOHN.) Memoirs of the Life of Sir John Clerk of 
Penecuik .... Edited ... by John M. Gray. Scottish 
History Society, 1892. 

CowLEY, ABRAHAM. Essays, Plays and Sundry Verses. The 
text edited by A. R. Waller. Cambridge, 1906. 

[CroKkER, THOMAS CrRoFTON.] Remarks on an Article inserted 
in the Papers of the Shakespeare Society. [1849]. 

Cust, LioneL, and Sipney Cotvin. History of the Society of 
the Dilettanti. London, 1898. 

(Deror, DANIEL.) Earlier Life and chief earlier Works. Edited 
by Henry Morley. London, 1889. 

DELEPIERRE, OcTAvE. Analyse des Travaux de la Société des 
Philobiblon de Londres.... Londres, 1862. 

DispIn, THomAs FrRoanaunt. The Bibliographical Decameron 

3 v., London, 1817. 

DispIn, THOMAS FROGNALL. Reminiscences of a Literary Life. 
2 v., London, 1836. 

Dircks, H. A Biographical Memoir of Samuel Hartlib. Lon- 
don, n. d. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY Papa t 


DRYDEN, JOHN. Works .... Illustrated with notes... anda 
life of the author by Sir Walter Scott. Revised and cor- 
rected by George Saintsbury. 18 v., Edinburgh, 1882-93. 

[Duncoan, WituiAm James, Editor.] Notices and Documents 
illustrative of the Literary History of Glasgow during the 
greater Part of the Last Century. Maitland Club, 1831. 

(EDINBURGH SHAKSPEARE CLUB.) Rules and Regulations of the 
Edinburgh Shakspeare Club and Library, Instituted 
MDCCCXX .... Hdinburgh, 1826. 

Evuis, Sir Henry (Editor). Original Letters of Eminent 
Literary Men of the Sixteenth, Seventeenth, and Highteenth 
Centuries. Camden Society, 1843. 

English Dialect Dictionary (The). Founded on the Publications 
of the English Dialect Society and on ... material never 
before published. Edited by Joseph Wright. 6 v., London, 
1898-1905. 

EVELYN, JOHN. Memoirs... comprising his Diary, from 1641 
to 1705-6, and a Selection of his Familiar Letters .... 
Edited ... by William Bray. 5 v., London, 1827. 

Firzmavurice, Lorp Epmonp. The Life of Sir William Petty, 
1623-1687 . . . . London, 1895. 

FLETCHER, JEFFERSON B. Areopagus and Pleiade. Journal of 
English and Germanic Philology, I1, 429-53. Bloomington, 
[1898]. 

FiLucet, Ewaup. Die dilteste englische Akademie. Anglia, 
XXXII, 261-8. Halle a. S., 1909. 

Forses, JAMES Davip. Opening Address, 1862. In Proceedings 
of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, V, 2-34, 1866. 

(FURNIVALL, FREDERICK JAMES.) Frederick James Furnivall, a 
Volume of Personal Record. Oxford, 1911. 

FURNIVALL, FREDERICK JAMES. The “Co.” of Pigsbrook & Co. 
[London, 1881. ] 

[GoueH, Ricnarp.] <A List of the Members of the Society of 
Antiquaries of London, from their Revival in 1717, to June 
19, 1796. London, 1798. 

[GouacH, Ricuarp.] An Historical Account of the Origin and 
Establishment of the Society of Antiquaries. Archaeologia, 
I, i-xxxix. London, 1777. 


Zee SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


GossE, EpmMunpD. Jeremy Taylor. London, 1904. 

GRAHAM, Henry Grey. Scottish Men of Letters in the Eigh- 
teenth Century. London, 1901. 

GRIFFIN, APPLETON PrRENTISS CLARK. Bibliography of American 
Historical Societies .... 2d Ed., [Vol. IL of Annual Re- 
port of the American Historical Association for 1905]. 
Washington, 1907. 

GROWOLL, A. American Book Clubs; their Beginnings and His- 
tory, and a Bibliography of their Publications. New York, 
1897. 

HALLIWELL-PHILLIPPS, JAMES OrcHARD. [Published Corre- 
spondence with Robert Browning, President of the New 
Shakspere Society. 1881.]| 

Hammonpd, EEanor Prescott. Chaucer; a Bibliographical 
Manual .... New York, 1908. 

HEARNE, THomas. A Collection of Curious Discourses written 
by Eminent Antiquaries upon several Heads in our English 
Antiquities .... 2d Hd., 2 v., London, 1775. 

HEARNE, THOMAS. Remarks and Collections. Edited by C. E. 
Doble, [Vols. 4-5 by D. W. Rannie, and Vols. 6-8 under the 
Superintendence of the Committee of the Oxford Historical 
Society]. 8 v., Oxford Historical Society, 1885-1907. 

Hippert, SAMUEL, and Davin Laine. Account of the Progress 
of the Society of the Antiquaries of Scotland, from 1784 to 
1830. Archaeologia Scotica, III, App., v-xxxi, 1831. 

Hickes, Gerorce. Linguarum Vetlerum] Septentrionalium 
Thesaurus Grammatico-Criticus et Archaeologicus.... 2V., 
Oxoniae, 1705. (For title page of Vol. 2, see Humphrey 
Wanley, Antiquae Literaturae Septentrionalis Liber Alter.) 

Hume, ApraHAamM. The Learned Societies and Printing Clubs of 
the United Kingdom .... Compiled from official Docu- 
ments. With a Supplement ... by A. I. Evans. London, 
1853. 

Hunter, JOSEPH. An Account of the Scheme for erecting a 
Royal Academy in England in the Reign of King James the 
First. Archaeologia, XXXII, 132-49, 1847. 

[Innes, Cosmo.] Memoir of Thomas Thomson. Edinburgh, 
1854. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 223 


JOHNSON, SAMUEL. Works. 9 v., Oxford, 1825. 

Junius, Franciscus. LEtymologicum Anglicanum. Ex Auto- 
grapho deseripsit & Accessionibus permultis Auctum edidit 
Edwardus Lye.... Praemittuntur Vita Auctoris [Auctore 
Johanne Georgio Graevio] .... Oxonii, 1713. 

KEMBLE, JOHN M. Letter to Francisque Michel. In Michel’s 
Bibliotheque Anglo-Saxonne. Paris, 1837; pp. 1-63. 

Kennett, Wuitr. [The Life of Mr. Somner.] In William 
Somner’s A Treatise of Gavelkind, both Name and Thing 


2d Ed., 1726. 
Kerr, Rosert. Memoirs of the Life, Writings, and Correspond- 
ence of William Smellie.... 2 v., Edinburgh, 1811. 


LaInG, Davip. Anniversary Address on the State of the Society 
of Antiquaries of Scotland, from 1831 to 1860. Archaeologia 
Scotica, V, 1-36, 1890. 

LELAND, JOHN. The laboryouse journey and serche of John Ley- 
lande, for Englandes antiquitees . . . With declaracyons en- 
larged: by Johan Bale . .. . [Colophon] Emprented at 
London by Johan Bale. Anno. M. D. XLIX. 

Lewis, Lapy THERESA. Lives of the Friends and Contemporaries 
of Lord Chancellor Clarendon .... 3 v., London, 1852. 

LITERARY AND PHILOSOPHICAL Society OF MANCHESTER. Mem- 
oirs ... [First Series]. 5 v. in 7, Warrington, 1785-1802. 

LockHart, JOHN GIBson. Memoirs of the Life of Sir Walter 
Scott. 5 v., Boston, 1902. 

Lowe, Rospert W. A Bibliographical Account of English The- 
atrical Literature .... London, 1888. 

McCosu, JAMES. The Scottish Philosophy ... from Hutcheson 
to Hamilton. New York, 1875. 

MACKENZIE, Henry. Report of the Committee of the Highland 
Society of Scotland appointed to inquire into the Nature and 
Authenticity of the Poems of Ossian .... Edinburgh, 1805. 

Macray, WiLLIAM DunN. Annals of the Bodleian Library, Ox- 
ford, A. D. 1598-A. D. 1867 .... London, 1868. 

[MAatipMENT, JAMES.] Notices relative to the Bannatyne Club 

. including Critiques on some of its Publications. Edin- 
burgh, 1836. 


224 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


(MarTtLaAnp CuuB.) Catalogue of the Works printed for the 
Maitland Club ... with Lists of the Members and Rules of 
the Club. Printed for the Maitland Club, 1836. 

Marriot, J. A. R. The Life and Times of Lucius Cary, Viscount 
Falkland. Uondon, 1907. 

Martin, JOHN. A bibliographical Catalogue of Books privately 
printed .... London, 1834. (Second Edition, 1854.) 
MATTHEWS, BRANDER. Bookbindings old and new.... With 
an Account of the Grolier Club of New York. New York, 

1895. 

Mopvrern Lancuace ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA. Transactions, 
7 v., Baltimore, 1886-92. (Vols. 4-7 have title Publica- 
tions.) 

Mopvern Lancuace ASSOCIATION oF AMERICA. Publications 
‘ New Series. 20 v., Baltimore, 1893-1912. 

Monroz, B. 8. An English Academy. Modern Philology, VIII, 
107-122. Chicago, 1910. 

Monroe, Witt 8. Comenius and the Beginnings of Educational 
Reform. New York, 1900. 

Moors, Wiuiuiam. The Gentlemen’s Society at Spalding, with 
Notices of the Researches and Labours of the earliest Lincoln- 
shire Antiquaries. In Memoirs communicated to the Annual 
Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of Great Britain and 
Ireland held at Lincoln, July, 1848; 82-9. London, 1850. 

Munk, WiuuiaAmM. The Roll of the Royal College of Physicians 
of London .... 3 v., London, 1878. 

New SHAKSPERE Society. Transactions, 1874-[1892]. 14 nos., 
London, [1875]-1892. 

[NicHoLs, JoHN.| An Account of the Gentlemen’s Society at 
Spalding. Being an Introduction to the Reliquae Galeanae. 
[Nichols’s Bibliotheca Topographica Britannica, No. XX.] 
London, 1784. 

NICHOLS, JOHN. Biographical Memoirs of the late Isaac Reed, 
Esq. Gentleman’s Magazine, LXX VII, 80-2, 1807. 

NICHOLS, JOHN. Literary Anecdotes of the Eighteenth Century 

9 v., London, 1812-15. 

NICHOLS, JOHN GouGcH. <A Descriptive Catalogue of the Works 

of the Camden Society .... Camden Society, 1862. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


NIcotson, WiLuIAM. Letters on Various Subjects ... to and 
from William Nicolson .... [Edited by] John Nichols. 
London, 1809. 

Oxupys, Witutiam. Life of Sir Walter Ralegh. In Sir Walter 
Ralegh’s History of the World .... 2 -v., London, 1736, 
I, iii-eexxxii. 

ParKER, JAMES. The Early History of Oxford, 727-1100 .... 
Oxford Historical Society, 1885. 

(ParKER, MattHEew.) Correspondence ..., comprising Letters 
written by and to him, from 1535 to ...1575. Edited... 
by John Bruce and Thomas Thomason Perowne. Parker 
Society, 1853. 

(Paton, GreorGE.) Letters from Thomas Percy, John Callander, 
David Herd, and others, to George Paton. Edinburgh, 1830. 

Pepys, SAMUEL. Diary.... Edited... by Henry B. Wheatley. 
9 v., London, 1893-9. 

Preroy, THomas. Reliques of Ancient English Poetry... . 
Edited ... by Henry B. Wheatley. 3 v., London, 1886. 
(Percy, THomAsS.) Bishop Percy’s Folio Manuscript. Ballads 
and Romances. Edited by John W. Hales and Frederick J. 

Furnivall. 4 v., London, 1867-8. 

PETHERAM, JOHN. An Historical Sketch of the Progress and 
Present State of Anglo-Saxon Literature in England .... 
London, 1840. 

PurLoLocicaL Society. Proceedings... . [1842-1853.] 6 v., 
London, 1854. 

PHILOLOGICAL Society. Transactions .... 26 v., London, etc., 
[1856]-1913. 

Prior, Sir JAMES. Life of Edmond Malone .... London, 1850. 

QUARITCH, BERNARD. Account of the Great Learned Societies 
and Associations, and of the Chief Printing Clubs of Great 
Britain and Ireland .... [Sette of Odd Volumes, Miscel- 
lanies, No. 14.] London, 1886. 

Ritrcnis, THomas Epwarp. An Account of the Life and Writ- 
ings of David Hume. London, 1807. 

Ropertson, D. Macuaren. A History of the French Academy, 
1635[4]-1910 .... New York [1910]. 


16 


226 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


Roxburghe Ballads (The). [Vols. 1-3 edited by William Chap- 
pell, and 4-9 by Joseph Woodfall Ebsworth.] 8 v. in 9, 
Hertford, 1888-97 [-99]. 

ROxBURGHE CuuB. Chronological List of Members; Catalogue 
of Books; Rules and Regulations. London, 1855. 

(RoxpurGHE Cius.) Roxburghe Revels, and other relative 
Papers; including Answers to the Attack on the Memory of 
the late Joseph Haslewood.... Edinburgh, 1837. 

Royau Historicat Society. Transactions, New Series. 20 v., 
London, 1884-[1906]. 

(Roya Irish AcADEMY.) Charter and Statutes of the Royal 
Irish Academy for Promoting the Study of Science, Polite 
Literature, and Antiquities. Dublin, 1786. 

Royat Irtsq AcapeMy. Transactions .... 32 v., Dublin, 
1788-1904. 

(Royau Society oF EpinpurcH.) History of the Society. In 
Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, I, 3-22, 
1788. 

Royau Socrery oF LireraTuRE. Transactions .... Vol. I, 
Pt. I, London, 1827. 

(Royat Society oF Lonpon.) Philosophical Transactions of the 
Royal Society .... Abridged by Charles Hutton, George 
Shaw, and Richard Pearson. 18 v., London, 1809. 

(Royat Society or Lonpon.) The Record of the Royal Society 
of London. Third Edition, entirely revised and rearranged. 
London, 1912. 

SAUNDERS, Barney. The Life and Letters of James Macpherson 

London, 1894, 

Scott, Str Watrer. Familiar Letters. [Edited by David 
Douglas.] 2 v., Boston, 1894. 

Scort, Srr WautTer. Journal .... From the original Manu- 
script at Abbotsford. [Edited by David Douglas.] 2 v., 
Edinburgh, 1890. 

Scorr, Str WautTer. Minstrelsy of the Scottish Border. Edited 
by T. F. Henderson. 4 v., Edinburgh, 1902. 

[Scort, Sir Wauter.] [Review of] Trials, and other Proceed- 
ings, in Matters Criminal, before the High Court of 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 227 


Justiciary in Scotland. Selected ... by Robert Pitcairn 
Quarterly Review, XLIV, 438-75. London, 1831. 

Rr de teaes Societies of America: Their Methods and Work. 
Shakespeareana, II, 480-8, 1885. 

SHAKESPEARE Society. Papers .... 4 v., London, 1844-9. 

SHEFFIELD SHAKESPEARE CLUB. Proceedings ... from its Com- 
mencement, in 1819, to January, 1829 .... Sheffield, 1829. 

SHELLEY Society. Note-Book .... Edited by the Honorary 
Secretaries. Part I, being the First Part of Volume I [all 
published]. London, 1888. 

SKEAT, WALTER W. The Chaucer Canon. With a Discussion of 
the Works associated with the Name of Geoffrey Chaucer 

Oxford, 1900. 

SKEAT, WALTER W., Editor. Chaucerian and other Pieces. Ox- 
ford, 1897. 

Smaut, JoHN. [Memoir of David Laing.] In Select Remains 
of the Ancient Popular and Romance Poetry of Scotland, 
collected and edited by David Laing. Re-edited... by John 
Small. Edinburgh, 1885. (Memorial Introduction, v- 
XXVIi1. ) 

SMELLIE, WILLIAM. An Historical Account of the Society of the 
Antiquaries of Scotland. In Transactions of the Society of 
the Antiquaries of Scotland, I, i1i—xxxiui, 1792. 

Smitu, R. Ancus. A Centenary of Science in Manchester... . 
London, 1883. 

SmirH, THomas. Vita D. Roberti Cottoni.... In [Christian 
Gryphius’s] Vitae Selectae quorundam eruditissimorum ac 
illustrium Virorum, 434-536. Vratislaviae, 1711. (Re- 
printed from Smith’s Catalogus Librorum Manuscriptorum 
Bibliothecae Cottonianae.... 1696.) 

(Society oF ANTIQUARIES OF Lonpon.) Archaeologia or Mis- 
cellaneous Tracts relating to Antiquity. Published by the 
Society of Antiquaries of London. 62 v., London and Ox- 
ford, 1770-1911. 

Society OF THE ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND. Transactions .... 
5 v., Edinburgh, 1792-1890. (Vols. 2-5 have title Archae- 
ologia Scotica or Transactions.) 


228 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


SomNER, WILLIAM. Dictionarium Sasonico-Latino-Anglicum 
... Acceserunt Aelfrici Abbatis Grammatica Latino-Saxonica, 
cum Glossario.... Oxonii, 1659. 

SPELMAN, Sir Henry. English Works... published in his Life- 
Time; together with his posthumous Works relating to the 
Laws and Antiquities of England... . 2d Ed., London, 
Weure 

SPINGARN, J. E., Editor. Critical Essays of the Seventeenth Cen- 
tury. 3 v., Oxford, 1908-9. 

Sprat, THomAs. The History of the Royal Society of London 
for the Improving of Natural Knowledge. London, 1667. 
STEEVES, Harrison Ross. ‘The Athenian Virtuosi’? and ‘ The 
Athenian Society. Modern Language Review, VII, 358-71, 

1912, 

STEVENSON, THomAS GerorGEe. Notices of David Laing ... To 
which is added a Chronological List of the various Publica- 
tions which were issued under his editorial Superintendence 
from ...1815 to... 1878 inclusive. Edinburgh, 1878. 

Stewart, DuGaup. Collected Works .... Edited by Sir Wil- 
liam Hamilton. 10 v., Edinburgh, 1854-8. 

Stewart, DuGaup. Account of the Life and Writings of Adam 
Smith. In Essays on Philosophical Subjects by ... Adam 
Smith. London, 1795. 

Stewart, Dueaup. Account of the Life and Writings of Thomas 
Reid .... Edinburgh, 1803. 

Stewart, DuGaup. Account of the Life and Writings of William 
Robertson .... London, 1801. 

Stow, JoHN. The Annales, or Generall Chronicle of England. 
Begun first by Maister Iohn Stow, and after him continued 
and augmented ... unto the Ende of this present Yeere, 1614, 
by Edmond Howes .... lLondini, 1615. 

STRANG, JOHN. Glasgow and its Clubs.... Glasgow, 1856. 

STRYPE, JOHN. History of the Life and Acts of ... Hdmund 
Grindal . . . to which is added an Appendix of original 
Manuscripts .... Oxford, 1821. 

Strype, Joun. The Life and Acts of Matthew Parker.... 3 
v., Oxford, 1821. 

{Stuart, JoHN.] Notices of the Spalding Club. With the 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 229 


Annual Reports, List of Members and Works printed for the 
Club, 1839-71. Edinburgh, 1871. 

STUKELEY, WILLIAM. Family Memoirs ... and the antiquarian 
and other Correspondence of William Stukeley, Roger and 
Samuel Gale, etc. 3 v., Surtees Society, 1882-7. 

SWINBURNE, ALGERNON CHARLES. A Stuly of Shakespeare. 
London, 1880. 

TAYLOR, GEeorRGE. A Memoir of Robert Surtees .... A new 
Edition, with annotations by ... James Raine. Surtees 
Society, [1852]. 

[TeppeR, Henry Ricuarp.|] Learned Societies. In Encyclo- 
paedia Britannica. ... 11th Ed. XXV, 309-19. Cam- 
bridge, 1911. 

TERRY, CHARLES SANDFORD. A Catalogue of the Publications of 
Scottish Historical and kindred Clubs and Societies, 1780- 
1908 .... Glasgow, 1909. 

[THompson, J. Davin, Editor.] Handbook of Learned Societies 
and Institutions: America. Washington, Carnegie Institu- 
tion, 1908. 

THYNNE, FRANCIS. Animaduersions vppon the Annotacions and 
Corrections of some Imperfections of Impressiones of 
Chaucers Workes ... reprinted in. ..1598.... Newly 
edited... by G. H. Kingsley .... Revis’d Edition by F. J. 
Furnivall.... Early English Text Society, 186[7]5. 

Timss, JOHN. Club Life of London ... during the 17th, 18th, 
and 19th Centuries. 2 v., London, 1866. 

TyTLER, ALEXANDER FRASER. Memoirs of the Life and Writings 
of Henry Home of Kames.... 2d Ed., 3 v., Edinburgh, 
1814. 

VOCKERODT, GOTHFRED. Fzercitationes Academicae: sive Com- 
mentatio Eruditorum Societatibus .... Gothae, 1704. 

WaNLeEY, Humpurey. Antiquae Literaturae Septentrionalis 
Liber Alter. Seu... Librorum vett. septentrionalium ... 
Catalogus historico-criticus .... Oxoniae, 1705. (Second 
volume of Hickes’s Thesaurus.) 

Warner, Georce F. Catalogue of the Manuscripts and Muni- 
ments of Alleyn’s College of God’s Gift at Dulwich. [Lon- 
don], 1881, 


230 SOCIETIES AND ENGLISH LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP 


Warron, THomas. Poetical Works .... Fifth Edition... 
together with Memoirs of his Life and Writings, and Notes 
... by Richard Mant. 2 v., Oxford, 1802. 

Watson, Foster. Scholars and Scholarship, 1600-60. In Cam- 
bridge History of English Literature, VII, 304-24, 1911. 

We tp, Cuartes Ricuarp. A History of the Royal Society, with 
Memoirs of the Presidents. Compiled from authentic Docu- 
ments.... 2 -v., London, 1848. 

Wueatury, Henry B. How to Form a Library. 2d Ed., New 
York, 1886. (Chapter VII, Publishing Societies, 184-216.) 

WuHeattey, Henry B. Notes on the Life of John Payne Collier; 
with a complete List of his Works, and an Account of such 
Shakespeare Documents as are believed to be spurious. 
London, 1884. (Reprinted from The Bibliographer, 1883-4). 

Waits, R. M. [and Joun Earte]. The Ormulum, with the Notes 
and Glossary of R. M. White. Edited by Robert Holt. 2 v., 
Oxford, 1878. (Preface, including a valuable account of 
Anglo-Saxon scholarship, 1-liii.) 

Woop, AnrHony A. Athenae Oxonienses.... A new Edition, 
with Additions and a continuation by Philip Bliss.... 5v.,, 
London, 1813-20. 

WorpswortH Sociery. Transactions .... 8 Nos., [1882-7]. 

(WorpswortH Socrety.) Wordsworthiana, a Selection from 
Papers read to the Wordsworth Society. Edited by William 
Knight. London, 1889. 

WORTHINGTON, JOHN. Diary and Correspondence .... Edited 
by James Crossley [and Richard Copley Christie]. 2 v. in 
3, Chetham Society, 1847-86. 

Wricut, Tuomas. Biographica Britannica Literaria, or Biog- 
raphy of literary Characters of Great Britain and Ireland 
arranged in chronological Order. 2 v., London, 1842-6. 
(All published.) 

WuucKker, Ricuarp. Grundriss zur Geschichte der angelsiich- 
sischen Litteratur mit einer Ubersicht der angelsdchsischen 
Sprachwissenschaft. Leipzig, 1885. 

Year-Book of the Scientific and Learned Societies of Great Britain 
and Ireland.... 28 -v., London, 1884-1911. 


INDEX 


ABERDEEN PHILOSOPHICAL  SOcI- 
ETY, 86 

ABBOTSFORD CLUB, 111, 113-4, 190 

Academy, Proposals for in Eng- 
land, 2-3, 6, 36-42, 43 

ACADEMY ROYAL OF KING JAMES, 
36-9 

ACORN CLUB, 216 

Actor lists, 135 

Addison, Joseph, 40, 69 

Adrian and Ritheus, Dialogue of, 
155 

Advocates’ Library, Edinburgh, 79 

Aelfric, 10, 20, 162 

AELFRIC Society, 154-5 

Agarde, Arthur, 29 

Ailesbury, Thomas, Earl of, see 
Bruce 

Ainger, Alfred, 186 

Albert, Prince Consort, 115 

Alexander, Buik of, 112 

Alexander, William, Earl of Ster- 
ling, 38 

Alfred, King, 155 

Alleyn, Edward, 147 

American dialect dictionary, Pro- 
posals for, 209 

AMERICAN DIALEcT Society, 209 


AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIA- 
TION, 217 

AMERICAN PHILOLOGICAL ASSOCIA- 
TION, 205-7 


Amours, Francois Joseph, 137 
Amyot, Thomas, .145 

Ancren Riwle, 124 

ANDERSTON CLUB, 86, 87 
Andrews, Lancelot, Bp., 29, 31 


Anglo-Saxon dictionaries, 20-4, 63; 
Gospels, 122; homilies, 155, 162; 
psalters, 20, 122; ritual, Dur- 
ham, 122 

Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 155 

ANTILIA, 52 

ANTIQUARIES, see ASSEMBLY OF THE 
ANTIQUARIES, SOCIETY OF ANTI- 
QUARIES. 

Antiquaries, Meetings of, 56, 66, 
68, 93 

APOSTLES, THE, 3 

Arbuthnot, John, 69-70 

Archaeologia, 65, 91, 120 

Archaeological Review, 133 

AREOPAGUS, 3 

Aristotle, 48 n. 

Arnold, Matthew, 41, 185 

Arthur, Archibald, 82 

Arthurian romances, 124 

Arundel, Earl of, see Fitzalan 

Ash, John, 90 

Ashmole, Elias, 56 

ASSEMBLY OF THE ANTIQUARIES 
(ELIZABETHAN), 5-35, 56 

Asser, Life of Alfred, 10, 11, 12 n., 
13 

Athenian Gazette, 57 

Athenian Mercury, 57 

ATHENIAN SocIETY, 57 

ATHENIAN VIRTUOSI, 56-7 

Aubrey, John, 55-6, 134 

Aungervyle, Richard, of Bury, 213 

AUNGERVYLE CLUB, 136 

Axon, William E. A., 199 

Aytoun, Sir Robert, 38, 135 


231 


232 


Bacon, Sir Francis, 42, 51, 53 

Baffin, William, 131 

Bagford, John, 61, 62, 63 n. 

Bagford Ballads, 166, 167 

Baker, Sir Richard, 48 n. 

Bale, John, 8, 124, 127-8 

BALLAD Society, 161, 166-8, 182 

Ballads, Scottish popular, in manu- 
seript, 134 

Ballard, George, 61, 64 

Bannatyne, George, 108, 111, 112 

BANNATYNE CLUB, 106, 107-12, 
118, 114, 119, 122, 127, 144 n., 
163, 170, 190 

Barbour, John, Bruce, 127, 162, 192 

Barclay, Alexander, 165 

Barclay, John, 80 

Barnfield, Richard, 143 

Batman, Stephen, 8-9 

Beadnell, Maria, 215 

Beale, Robert, 29 

Beattie, James, 76-7 

Beaumont, Sir John, 38 

Bede, Historia Ecclesiastica, 126, 
155, 162 

Bell, Beaupré, 70 

Bellenden, John, 192 

Benefield, Esq., 32-3 

Benson, Thomas, 36 

Bentley, Richard, 69 

Beowulf, 136, 162 

Bercher, William, 107 

Berdoe, Edward, 187 

Berkeley, George, Bp., 74 

Beves of Hamtoun, 113 

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL Society, 134-5 

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL SOCIETY OF 
AMERICA, 217 

Bibliographies: Early American 
Plays, 214; Elegies on_ the 
Death of Henry, Prince of 
Wales, 134; English Plays 


INDEX 


written before 1643, 134; Eng- 
lish Writers from Langland to 
Wither, 213; English Writers 
from Wither to Prior, 213; Later 
American Plays, 214; Masques, 
Pageants, Etc., 1384; Middle 
Scots Poets, 192; Scottish popu- 
lar ballads in Manuscript, 134; 
Scottish Theatrical Literature, 
134 

BIBLIOPHILE SoOcIETY, 212, 214-5 

Bibliotheca Literaria, 70 

Biographica Britannica Literaria, 
141 

BIRMINGHAM AND MIDLAND INSTI- 
TUTE, 131 

Blair, Hugh, 79-80, 85-6 

Blandford, Marquis of, see Church- 
hill 

Blickling Homilies, 162 

Blind Harry, 192 

Boas, Frederick S., 198, 199 

Bodenham, John, 165 

Bodley, Sir Thomas, 20 

Bohn, Henry G., 110, 116 

Bolland, William, 103 

Bolton, Edmund, 3, 32, 33, 36-9, 
46 n., 50 

Bond, R. Warwick, 104, 107 

Bosco, Johannes de, 44 

BostoN BROWNING Society, 212 

Boswell, James (1740-95), 79-80, 
90, 135 

Boswell, James (1778-1822), 102 

Bosworth, Joseph, 120, 130, 148, 
155 

Bouchier, Henry, 29 

Bowyer, Mr., 29 

Boyle, Robert (1627-91), 52, 54 

Boyle, Robert (1842—), 175 

BRADFORD CLUB, 215-6 

Bradley, Andrew Cecil, 196, 199 


INDEX 


Bradley, Miss E. T., 12 n. 

Bradley, Henry, 154, 196, 199 

Bradshaw, Henry, 129 

Bradstreet, Anne, 216 

BRAZENNOSE SOCIETY, 68 

BrITISH ACADEMY, 2-3, 195-6 

BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSO- 
CIATION, 131, 132 

Britten, James, 183 

BrRoNTE Society, 183-4, 199 

Brooke, Arthur, 174. 

Brooke, Stopford, 175, 185, 194 

Broughton, Richard, 29 

Browning, Robert, 172, 
184-5, 187-8, 189, 194 

BROWNING Society, 161, 183-4, 
186-90, 192, 193, 200, 202, 212 

Bruce, Thomas, Earl of Ailes- 
bury, 107 

Bryant, William Cullen, 215 

Brydges, Sir Egerton, 102 

Buchan, Earl of, see Erskine 

Buchanan, George, 112, 192 

Buckingham, Duke of, see Villiers 

Burghley, Lord, see Cecil 

Burke, Edmund, 76-7, 82, 116 

Burnet, Gilbert, Bp., 136 

Burns, Robert, 135, 215 

Burns Society, 183-4 

Burton, John Hill, 103, 112 

Bury, Richard de, see Aungervyle 

Bushell, Thomas, 51 

Button’s Coffee-House, 73 

Byrom, John, 129, 132 


179-80, 


Caedmon, 65, 121 

Callander, John, 81 

CAMBRIDGE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY, 
199 

Cambridge University, 9 

Camden, William, 12-14, 15, 24, 


233 


25, 26, 28, 29, 30-1, 35, 36, 60, 
75, 123 

CAMDEN Society, 119, 123-5, 128, 
132, 145, 158, 163 

Cameron, James, 134 

Campbell, J. Dykes, 189 

Campbell, Thomas, 145 

Captain Cox’s Ballads, 166, 182 

Carew, Richard, of Anthony, 6 n., 
18, 20, 26, 29, 31 

Carlyle, Thomas, 213 

CARLYLE Society, 183-4, 200 

Carr, William, 22 

Cary, Lucius, Viscount Falkland, 
54 

Casaubon, Isaac, 60 

Catheart, W. H., 216 

Cavendish, William George Spen- 
cer, Duke of Devonshire, 102 

Caxton, William, 45 

CAXTON CLUB, 216 

CAXTON SociEtTy, 129-30 

Cecil, William, Lord Burghley, 34 

Chalmers, James, 80 

Chalmers, Patrick, 112 

Chambers, Edmund K., 198 

Chapelain, Jean, 40 

Chapman, George, 38 

Chappell, William, 166 

Charles I, 38-9, 50 

Charles II, 54 

Chatterton, Thomas, 96 

Chaucer, Geoffrey, 15, 16-8, 43, 
45 n., 46 n., 70, 141, 143, 158-9, 
168-9 

CHAUCER Society, 161, 168-9, 203 

Chesterfield, Earl of, see Stanhope 

CHETHAM Society, 129, 132 

Chettle, Henry, 174 

Child, Francis J., 209 

Chillingworth, William, 55 


234 


Churchill, George Spencer, Mar- 
quis of Blandford, 101, 102 

Churchyard, Thomas, 165 

Clarendon Press, 150 

Clariodorus, 113 

Clerk, Sir John, of Penecuik, 64, 
66, 67, 75-6 

Cliffe, Mr., 29 

CLUB FOR COLONIAL REPRINTS, 216 

CLUB OF ODD VOLUMES, 216 

Coleridge, Herbert, 149, 150 

Coleridge, Samuel Taylor, 140 

Collier, J. Payne, 104, 123, 142, 
143 n., 145, 146-8, 157, 169 

Comenius, John Amos, 42, 43 n., 
50 

Compton, William, Earl of North- 
ampton, 29, 32-3 

CONCORDANCE SocIETy, 209-10 

Constable, Archibald, 108 

Conybeare, John Josias, 119-20 

Conybeare, William Daniel, 120 

Cook, Albert 8., 210 

Cooke, George Willis, 212 

Cooper, James’ Fenimore, 215 

Cooper, Lane, 210 

Cope, Walter, 29 

Copeland, Robert, 213 

Copley, Sir Thomas, 107 

Corpus Christi College, 
bridge, 9 

Corser, Thomas, 129 

Corson, Hiram, 188 

Cotton, Sir Robert, 5, 6 n., 14-5, 
24, 26, 28, 29, 31, 35, 38, 60 

Cottonian Library, 15 

County Folk-Lore, 134 

County societies, 131-2 

Courthope, William John, 196 

Coverdale, Miles, 127 

Cowell, John, 63 

Cowley, Abraham, 42, 51, 53 


Cam- 


INDEX 


Crabbe, George, 140 
Cranmer, Thomas, Abp., 127 
Croker, Thomas Crofton, 
143 n., 146 n. 
Crossley, James, 129, 165 
Cunningham, Peter, 142, 146 
Cursor Mundi, 162 
Cynewulf, 158-9 


123, 


Dalrymple, David, Lord Hailes, 80 

Daniel, Peter Augustin, 175 

Daniel, Samuel, 116 

Darwin, Erasmus, 92 

Davies, Sir John, 20, 28, 29, 31 

Day, John, 9 

Defoe, Daniel, 40, 57-8, 59 

Deguileville, Guillaume de, 107 

Deir, Book of, 127 

Delaval, Edward, 92 

Delius, Nikolaus, 175, 181 

Descartes, René, 42 

Dethick, Sir Gilbert, 32-3 

Dethick, Sir William, 29, 30-1, 
32-3 ; 

De Vere, Aubrey, 186 

Devonshire, Duke of, see Caven- 
dish 

d’Ewes, Sir Simonds, 23-4, 60 

Dialect Notes, 209 

Dialect societies, 182-3, 199, 209 

Dibdin, Thomas Frognall, 98, 99, 
100, 102, 106, 107, 112, 214 

Dickens, Charles, 215 

Digby, Sir Kenelm, 38 

Digby Mysteries, 174 

Digges, Sir Dudley, 38 

Dilke, Charles Wentworth, 145 

Dillon, Wentworth, Earl of Ros- 
common, 40 

Dobell, Bertram, 194 

Doddridge, Sir John, 28, 29, 31 

Dodsley, Robert, 197 


INDEX 


Dole, Nathan Haskell, 214 

Doneaster, A society at, 68 

Donne, John, 116, 213 

Dorset, Earl of, see Sackville 

Douce, Francis, 105 

Douglas, Gavin, 112 

Dowden, Edward, 177, 185, 194 

Doyley, Thomas, 29, 30-1 

Drake, Joseph Rodman, 216 

Drake, William, 91 

Drayton, Michael, 19, 38, 47 n., 165 

Drummond, William, of Hawthorn- 
den, 113 

Dryden, John, 40, 43, 46, 47, 48n., 
56, 213 

Dublin, A society at, 68 

DUBLIN SOCIETY, 93 

Ducarel, Andrew, 65, 68 

Dugdale, Sir William, 22, 23, 24, 
60 

Dulwich College, 147 

Dunbar, William, 111, 192 

DunuaP Society, 212, 213-4 

Dunton, John, 57 

Durham Ritual, 122 

Dyce, Alexander, 123, 142, 145, 
146-7 

Dyer, Sir Edward, 3 


Eadmer, 19 

EARLY ENGLISH DRAMA SOCIETY, 
196-7 

EaRLY ENGLISH TEXT SOCIETY, 
112, 119, 188, 152, 154, 156-64, 
168, 190, 191-2, 201, 202-3 

Ebsworth, Joseph Woodfall, 160 n., 
166-8 

Edinburgh, A classical society at, 
74; Shakspere societies at, 
144 n. 

EDINBURGH BIBLIOGRAPHICAL SOCI- 
ETY, 117, 184-5 


235 


Edinburgh Review, 84 

EDINBURGH SHAKESPEARE 
AND LIBRARY, 144 n. 

Edinburgh University 78, 79 

Edmonds, John Philip, 134 

Elegies on the Death of Henry, 
Prince of Wales, 134 

Elizabeth, Queen, 141 

ELIZABETHAN Society, 200 

Hillis, Alexander J., 149, 153, 154, 
162, 169, 172, 182, 183 

Ellis, Havelock, 133 

Ellis, Sir Henry, 104, 121 

Elstob, Elizabeth, 61 

Elstob, William, 61, 62 

Elton, Oliver, 165 

Elworthy, Frederick Thomas, 183 

Elze, Friedrich Karl, 181 

Emerson, Ralph Waldo, 216 

ENGLISH ASSOCIATION, 198-9 

English Dialect Dictionary, 183 

ENGLISH DrALEcT Society, 154, 
182-3 

ENGLISH HISTORICAL Society, 119, 
125 

Erdeswicke, Sampson, 29, 32 

Erskine, David Steuart, Earl of 
Buchan, 78—9 

ETYMOLOGICAL 
BRIDGE), 148 n. 

EUMELIAN CLUB, 90 

Eusden, Laurence, 69-70 

Evelyn, John, 51, 52-3 

Exeter Book, 119, 121 


CLUB 


SoOcIETY, (CAM- 


Fairholt, Frederick William, 142 
Falkland, Viscount, see Cary 
Fanshawe, Sir Henry, 32-3 
Fantosme, Jordan, 122 

Farmer, John 8., 196 

Farmer, Richard, 89, 90 
Ferrier, John, 93 


236 


Firth, Charles Harding, 135, 196 

Fiske, John, 215 

Fitzalan, Henry, Earl of Arundel, 
34 

Fitzgerald, Edward, 213 

Fleay, Frederick Gard, 133, 135, 
175 

Fleetwood, William, 29, 30-1 

Fletcher, Andrew, of Saltoun, 134 

Fletcher, Dr. Giles, 131 

Flores Historiarum, 10,11 n., 12 n. 

Fliigel, Ewald, 5, 6 

Folk-Lore, 133 

Folk-Lore Journal, 133 

Folk-Lore Record, 133 

FOLK-LORE Society, 133-4 

Forbes, James David, 78 

Forman, H. Buxton, 180 n., 194, 
215 

Foulis, Andrew, 81, 82 

Foulis, Robert, 81, 82 

Foxe, John, 9, 10, 12, 25 

Franklin, Benjamin, 92-3, 
216 

FRENCH ACADEMY, 39-42, 43, 60 

Freneau, Philip, 216-7 

FRUCHTBRINGENDE GESELLSCHAFT, 
60 

Fry, Danby P., 152, 153 

Fulke Fitz-Warine, 156 

Furness, Horace Howard, 210-11 

Furnivall, Frederick J., 17, 104, 
111, 138, 149, 150, 151, 152, 154, 
157-61, 163, 166, 167, 168, 169, 
171-82, 187, 189, 192-3, 194, : 
196, 199, 212 


213, 


Gale, Roger, 66, 69, 70-1 
Garnett, Richard, 148 
Garrick, David, 89 
Gataker, Charles, 55 
Gawain Romances, 112 


INDEX 


Gawdy, Philip, 107 

Gay, John, 69 

Geddie, William, 192 

George IV, 140 

Gerbier, Balthasar, 50 

Gibson, Edmund, Bp., 36, 61 

Gildas, 126 

Giles, John Allen, 130 

GLAscow LITERARY CLUB, 81-3, 86 

Gollanez, Israel, 104, 107, 196 

Gomme, Laurence, 133 

Gonner, Edward C. K., 189 

Gosson, Stephen, 146 

Gough, Richard, 25; Account of 
the Establishment of the Society 
of Antiquaries, 5, 28, 30, 31, 32, 
34, 56, 63 

Gower, Earl, see Leveson-Gower 

Gower, John, 46 n., 47 n. 

Graevius, Joannes, 25 

GRAMPIAN CLUB, 135 

Gray, Thomas, 69-70, 96, 210 

Greene, Robert, 174 

Greg, Walter William, 134, 198 

Gregory, Donald, 80 

Grenville, Thomas, 105 n. 

Greville, Fulke, Lord Brooke, 3, 13 

Grimm, Jakob, 120, 152 

Grimm, Wilhelm, 120, 152 

Grindal, Edmund, Abp., 16, 127 

GROLIER CLUB, 212-3 

Grosart, Alexander B., 99, 165 n., 
169, 181 

Grosseteste, Robert, Bp., 130, 152 

Grundtvig, Nikolai Frederik, 120 

Guardian, The, 70 

Gude and Godlie Ballatis, 192 

Guest, Edwin, 148 


Hailes, Lord, see Dalrymple 
Hakewill, William, 20, 29, 31 
Hakluyt, Richard, 131 


INDEX 


HAKLuyT Society, 130-1 

Hales, John W., 166, 175, 180 nu. 

Hallam, Henry, 140, 148 

Hallam, Thomas, 183 

Halleck, Fitzgreene, 216 

Halliwell-Phillipps, James Orchard, 
111, 142, 145, 146-7, 156, 157, 
169, 175, 177-81 

Hardy, Thomas Duffus, 125 

Harrington, James, 56 

Harrison, William, 174 

Hartlib, Samuel, 43, 51-2 

Hartmann von Aue, 214-5 

Hartwell, Abraham, 29, 31 

Harvey, Gabriel, 3, 125 

Haslewood, Joseph, 101, 102, 104- 
5, 144 n. 

Havelock the Dane, 104-5 

Hawes, Stephen, 143 

Hawkins, Sir Richard, 131 

Hawthorne, Nathaniel, 216 

Hazlitt, William Carew, 99, 197 

Hearne, Thomas, 12 n., 61, 66, 67, 
136; Collection of Curious Dis- 
courses, 5, 6, 18, 21, 27, 28, 
29-30, 31, 32-3, 34 

Heber, Richard, 99 

HELLENIC SOCIETY, see SOcIETY 
FOR THE PROMOTION OF HEL- 
LENIC STUDIES 

Helyas, Knight of the Swan, 213 

Heneage, Michael, 29, 32 

Henry, Prince of Wales, 134 

Henryson, Robert, 111, 112, 113, 
192 

Henslowe, Philip, 147 

Herbert, of Cherbury, 
Lord, 116 

Herbert, Earls of Pembroke, 34 

Herd, John, 107 

Herford, Charles Harold, 187 

Heslop, R. Oliver, 183 

17 


Edward, 


237 

Heylin, Peter, 130 

Heywood, John, 165, 196-7 

Heywood, Thomas, 146 

Hickes, George, 36, 49, 61, 63, 75 

Hickey, Miss E. H., 187 

Higginson, Thomas Wentworth, 
212 

HIGHLAND Society or ScoTLann, 
94-5 

Hoby, Sir Thomas, 125 

Hoccleve, Thomas, 162 

HopcE Ponce CLus, 86 

Hoe, Robert, 213 

Holinshed, Ralph, 15 

Holland, Joseph, 29, 32-3 

Holland, T., 32-3 

Holme, Randle, 107 

Home, Henry, Lord Kames, 74, 
76-7, 79-80, 83 

Home, John, 83, 85 

Horace, 214 

Houghton, Lord, see Milnes 

Howard, Henry, Earl of North- 
ampton, 32-3 

Howard, Henry, Earl of Surrey, 
103 

Howell, James, 40 

Howlat, Buke of the, 136 

Hume, Alexander, 112, 192 

Hume, David, 76-7, 81, 83-4 

Hunter, Joseph, 56 

HUNTERIAN CxiuB, 111, 114, 119, 
163, 166, 169-71, 190 

Huth, Henry, 116 


Ingleby, Clement, M., 180 n. 

Ingram, John K., 175 

Innes, Cosmo, 112, 127 

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 
ACADEMIES, 3, 195 

INVISIBLE COLLEGE, 54 

Ionian Antiquities, 72 


238 


Ireland, Mrs. Alexander, 187 

Ireland, Samuel, 90, 97 

TRISH ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND CELTIC 
Society, 110 

Irving, David, 112 

Irving, Washington, 140, 213, 215 

Isted, George, 101 


Jacobs, Joseph, 133 

James I of England, VI of Scot- 
land, 28, 36-9, 80, 135, 136 

James I of Scotland, 192 

James, Richard, 24 

Jamieson, John, 136 

Jebb, Sir Richard, 180 n., 186 

Jeremiah, John, 175 n. 

Jewel, John, Bp., 127-8 

Johnson, Maurice, 66, 68, 69 

Johnson, Samuel, 40, 73, 87-90, 
94, 116, 149, 213 

Jones, Inigo, 38 

Jones, Samuel Arthur, 216 

Jonson, Ben, 38, 46 n., 116 

Joscelyn, John, 9, 10, 12 n., 21, 
23, 24, 25 

Junius, Franciscus, 49, 60-1, 65, 
70, 75 


Kames, Lord, see Home 

Keats, John, 116, 215 

Kemble, John Mitchell, 120, 125, 
126, 148, 155 

Kennett, White, Bp., 36, 61 

Ker, John, Third Duke of Rox- 
burghe, 98, 101 

Ker, William Paton, 196, 199: 

Kittredge, George Lyman, 169 

Knight, Charles, 145, 146-7 

Knight, Payne, 72 

Knight, Samuel, 66 

Knight, William (1786-1844), 127 

Knight, William (1836-), 185-6 


INDEX 


Knox, John, 128, 135 
Koch, John, 169 

Kolle, Henry, 215 
Kynaston, Sir Francis, 50 


Laet, Johannes de, 22, 23 

Laing, David, 80, 108, 110-11, 
113, 122, 127, 128, 169 

Lake, Sir Thomas, 29, 31 

Lamb, Charles, 215 

Lambarde, William, 8, 9, 12 n., 
14, 20-1, 25, 26, 29, 30-1, 32, 
35 

Lancelot of the Laik, 113, 192 

Landor, Walter Savage, 216 

Laneham, Robert, 182 

Lang, Andrew, 133, 192-3, 196 

Langbaine, Gerard, 146 

Langland, William, 213; see also 
Piers Plowman 

La Rue, Gervais, Abbé de, 91 

Latham, Grace, 175 

Latimer, Hugh, Bp., 127 

Latin Hymns of the Anglo-Saxon 
Church, 122 

Lavoisier, Antoine, 93 

Law, Thomas Graves, 190 

Layamon, 121 

Lee, Sir Sidney, 11 n., 14, 175, 196 

Leigh, Sir Francis, 29 

Leigh, Richard, 57 

Le Neve, Peter, 62, 64 

Leo, Friedrich August, 181 

Lesley, John, Bp., 192 

Leveson-Gower, George Granville, 
Earl Gower, 102 

Ley, Sir James, 28, 29 

Lhwyd, Edward, 75-6 

Liber Cure Cocorum, 152 

Lincoln, A society at, 68 

Lindesay, Robert, 192 

L’Isle William, 19, 20, 24, 26, 30 


INDEX 


LITERARY AND PHILOSOPHICAL 
Society OF MANCHESTER, 92 

LITERARY CLUB, THE, 73, 87-90 

LITERARY FUND, 139 n. 

Littlehales, Henry, 169 

Littré, Emile, 152 

Locker-Lampson, Frederick, 216 

Lodge, Thomas, 170 

Lonelich, Henry, see Lovelich 

Longfellow, Henry Wadsworth, 
215 

Lovelich, Henry, 162 

Lover, The, 70 

Lowell, James Russell, 185, 213, 
216 

Lydgate, John, 16, 47 n., 143, 162 

Lye, Edward, 64 

Lyndesay, Sir David, 111, 161 


Macaria, 51-2 

Macfie, R. A. Scott, 134 

Mackay, Aeneas J. G., 190 

McKerrow, Ronald B., 198 

Mackintosh, Donald, 80 

Maclaurin, Colin, 74 

Macmath, William, 134 

Macpherson, James, 80, 85, 94-5, 
96 

Macready, William C., 145 

Madden, Sir Frederic, 10 n., 11 n., 
12 n., 104-5, 112, 121, 145, 155 

Maidment, James, 108 

Maitland, Sir Richard, of Lething- 
ton, 113, 136 

MAITLAND CuiuB, 106, 110, 111, 
112-8, 114, 127, 190 

Malden, Henry, 149-50 

Mallet, David, 116 

Malmesbury, William of, 126 

Malone, Edmund, 89, 90, 91, 93, 98 

MALONE Socrery, 117, 197-8 

Malthus, Thomas R., 140 


239 


MANCHESTER LITERARY CLUB, 199 

Map, Walter, 124 

Margaret of Navarre, 141 

Marie de France, 92 

Market Overton, A society at, 68 

Marshall, Thomas, 49 

Martineau, Russell, 153 

MARTINUS SCRIBLERUS CLUB, 3 

Mary, Queen of Scots, 156 

Masques, Pageants, Etc., A List 
of, 134 

MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL Socl- 

ETY, 217 

Massinger, Philip, 93, 143 

Masson, David, 186, 190 

Matthews, Brander, 213 

Memoirs of Literature, 70 

Merlin, 161 

Meyer, Paul, 181 

Milman, Henry Hart, 145 

Milner, George, 199 

Milnes, Richard Monckton, Lord 
Houghton, 115, 185 

Milton, John, 40, 124, 125, 141, 
213 

MopEeRN LANGUAGE ASSOCIATION, 
200 

MoDERN LANGUAGE ASSOCIATION OP 
AMERICA, 206, 207-9, 217 

Monck, Gen. George, 56 

Monmouth, Geoffrey of, 130 

Monroe, B. S., 3 n., 6 n., 40 n. 

Montgomerie, Alexander, 192 

Moor, James, 81-2 

Moore, Thomas, 215 

Mores, Edward Rowe, 65 

Morfill, William Richard, 196 

Morgan, Appleton, 211 

Morley, Henry, 180 n. 

Morris, Richard, 149, 152, 153 

Miller, Max, 133 


240 


Mure, Sir William, of Rowallan, 
192 

Murray, Alma, 193 

Murray, Sir James A. H., 149, 
150-1, 153, 181, 190, 196 

Musa Latina Aberdonensis, 127 

MusAEUM MINERVAE, 50 


Napier, Arthur Sampson, 196 

Napier, James, 133 

NARAGANSETT CLUB, 216 

Neilson, George, 137 

Nennius, 126 

Nettleship, John T., 187 

Neve, Timothy, 69 

NEw Cuus, 136 

New English Dictionary, 149-52 

New Shakespeareana, 211 

NEW SHAKSPERE SOCIETY, 
171-82, 187, 193, 202 

NEW SPALDING CLUB, 127 

Nichols, John, 90 

Nicholson, Brinsley, 175 

Nicolson, William, 49, 61 

Nodal, John Howard, 183, 199 

Northampton, Earl of, see Comp- 
ton and Howard 

Northbrooke, John, 146 

Norton, Charles Eliot, 216 

Notes and Queries, 133 

Nowell, Laurence, 14, 20-21, 25 

Nutt, Alfred, 133, 134 


161, 


Oldisworth, Arnold, 29, 33 

Oldisworth, Michael, 29, 33 

Oldys, William, 146; Life of Sir 
Walter Ralegh 6 n., 32 n. 

ORKNEY, SHETLAND, AND NORTH- 
ERN Society, 136 

Ormerod, Helen J., 187 

Orosius, Paulus, 155 

Orr, Mrs. Sutherland, 187, 188, 189 


INDEX 


Ossian, 80, 85, 94-5, 96 

Ouvry, Frederic, 133 

Oxford, A club of antiquaries at, 
66 n. 

OxFrorD HISTORICAL SocIETy, 132, 
136 

OXFORD, PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY 
OF, 52, 54 

Oxford University, 12, 49, 54-5, 61 


Paisley, Black Book of, 136 

PAISLEY BURNS CLUB, 199 

Palgrave, Sir Francis, 121, 130 

Panizzi, Sir Anthony, 125 

Paris, Matthew, 10 n., 11 n., 12 n. 

Parker, John, 21 

Parker, Matthew, Abp., 5, 7-12, 
13, 14, 20, 21, 22, 25-6, 29, 30-1, 
35, 36, 44, 45, 48, 60, 62, 64, 
127 

PARKER SocIETY, 124, 127-8, 132, 
141, 158 

Parkinson, Richard, 129 

Parlement of the Thre Ages, 107 

Parnell, Thomas, 69-70 

Paton, George, 79-80 

Patten, William, 29 

Patterson, E. H. N., 216 

Payne, John Howard, 215 

Payne, Joseph, 153 

Peacham, Henry, 47 n. 

Peacock, Thomas Love, 215 

Pegge, Samuel, 91 

Pembroke, Earls of, see Herbert 

Pepys, Samuel, 55-6, 166 

Percy, Thomas, Bp., 66, 88, 89, 
90, 91, 938, 96, 142, 166 

Percy Society, 124, 141-4, 145, 
155, 156-7, 158 

PETERBOROUGH, GENTLEMEN ’S SOcI- 
ETY OF, 68, 71 

Peterborough Chronicle, 124, 130 


INDEX 241 


Petty, Sir William, 52, 54 

Philips, Mrs. Katherine, 55 

PHILOBIBLON Society, 115-6 

PHILOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION OF THE 
PAcIFIC Coast, 205-6 

PHILOLOGICAL SOcIETY, 
157, 158, 182, 205, 206 

PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY OF EDIN- 
BURGH, 74-6, 79, 82 

PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY OF IRE- 
LAND, 54 

PHyYSICO-HISTORICAL 
(DUBLIN), 93 

Piers Plowman, 47 n., 161 

Pinkerton, John, 80, 97 

Pitcairn, Robert, 108, 113, 127 

Plays, Early American, 214; Later 
American, 214; Inst of . 
written before 1643, 134 

Poe, Edgar Allen, 216 

POKER CLUB, 86-7 

Pollard, Alfred William, 198 

Poole, William Frederick, 186 

Pope, Alexander, 40, 69-70, 81, 
213 

Porter, Endymion, 38 

Porter, Henry, 143 

Powell, Frederick York, 133 

POWYSLAND CLUuB, 131-2 

Priestley, Joseph, 92 

PRINCE Society, 217 

PRINCETON HISTORICAL ASSOCIA- 
TION, 216—7 

Prior, Matthew, 40, 69-70 

Promptorium Parvulorum, 124 

Purchas, Samuel, 131 


148-54, 


SoOcIETY, 


Raine, James, 121, 122 

Ralegh, Sir Walter (1552?-1618), 
6 n., 34, 131 

Raleigh, Sir Walter (1861—), 187 

Rambler, The, 70, 88 n. 


Ramsay, Allan (1686-1758), 66 

Ramsay, Allan (1713-84), 83 

RANKENIAN CLUB, 73-4 

Reade, Charles, 213 

Reed, Isaac, 90 

Reid, Thomas, 76-7, 81, 82, 86 

Reynolds, Henry, 47 

Reynolds, Sir Joshua, 90° 

Richards, George, 141 

Richardson, Charles, 149 

Richelieu, Armand, Cardinal, 40 

Ridley, Nicholas, Bp., 127 

Rimbault, Edward Francis, 142 

Ritson, Joseph, 66, 90, 96 

Robertson, Joseph, 126, 127 

Robertson, William, 76, 81, 83 

Roden, Robert F., 214 

Rogers, Charles, 135 

Rolle, Richard, of Hampole, 152 . 

Rolleston, Thomas W., 194 

Rolls Series, 99, 124 

Romaunt of the Rose, 48 

Roscommon, Earl of, see Dillon 

Rossetti, Dante Gabriel, 214 

Rossetti, William Michael, 187,194 

Rota, 55-6 

ROWFANT CLUB, 216 

Rowlands, Samuel, 169-70 

Roxburghe, Duke of, see Ker 

Roxburghe Ballads, 166-8 

ROXBURGHE CLUB, 72, 100-7, 108, 
112, 114-5, 116, 119, 144 n. 

RoyaL HistToricaL Society, 125, 
132, 135 

Royal IRISH ACADEMY, 54, 93-4 

ROYAL PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY OF 
GLASGOW, 136-7 

RoyaL Society, 3, 41-3, 50, 51,. 
52, 58-4, 57, 58-9, 63 n., 67, 71, 
72, 73, 75, 138, 195 

Royal Society or EDINBURGH, 
76-8, 79, 80 


242 


Royal Society oF LITERATURE, 
138-41 

Ruddiman, Thomas, 74 

Ruskin, John, 175, 186 

RUSKIN SocletTy, 183-4, 200 

Rymer, Thomas, 47 n., 64 

RyMouR CLuB, 199 


Sackville, Thomas, Earl of Dorset, 
34 

St. Cuthbert, Life of, 122 

Saintsbury, George, 199 

Sandys, George, 55 

Savile, ‘‘ Long ’’ Henry, 13 n., 
29 n. 

Savile, Sir Henry, 29 n., 34 

Savile, Sir John, 29 

Savile, Thomas, 29 n. 

Scotichromcon, 136 

Scott, Alexander, 192 

Scott, Sir Walter, 77-8, 105-6, 
107-8, 110, 111, 113,135, 144 n., 
157, 215 

Scottish History Society, 136 

ScoTTisH LITERARY CLUB, 136, 199 

ScoTTisH TEXT SoOcIETy, 112, 163, 
190-2, 201 

Scottish Theatrical 
Bibliography of, 134 

Scriptores Monastici, 130 

Selden, John, 15, 19-20, 23, 25, 
26, 30, 38 

SELECT SoOcIETY, EDINBURGH, 83-6, 
87 

SETTE OF ODDE VOLUMES, 117 

SHAKESPEARE Society, 111, 124, 
128, 133, 141-2, 144-8, 156-7, 
158, 160, 163, 202 

SHAKESPEARE SOCIETY OF NEW 
YorK, 211-2 

Shakespeareana, 211 


Literature, 


Shakspere, 


INDEX 


William, 97, 158-9, 
171, 174, 175-8, 181, 210, 211 

Shakspere societies, 144 n., 200 

SHAKSPERE SOCIETY OF PHILADEL- 
PHIA, 210 

Sharp, William, 188 

Shaw, George Bernard, 189 

SHEFFIELD SHAKESPEARE SOCIETY, 
144 n. 

Shelley, Mary Wollstonecroft, 215 

Shelley, Perey Bysshe, 187, 193-4, 
215 

SHELLEY SOCIETY, 
192-5, 202 

Shepherd, Richard Herne, 186 

Sheridan, Thomas, 85 

Shrewsbury, Earl of, see Talbot 

Sidney, Sir Philip, 3, 34 

Silgrave, Henry of, 130 

SIMPLIFIED SPELLING BoarD, 206 

SIMPLIFIED SPELLING Society, 206 

Singer, Samuel Weller, 105 

Sir Tristrem, 192 

Skeat, Walter W., 133, 149, 154, 
161, 168, 169, 181, 183, 190, 196 

Skelton, John, 45, 47 n. 

Skene, James, 80 

Skene, William Forbes, 80 

Skinner, Cyriack, 56 

Smellie, William, 79-80, 85 n. 

Smith, Adam, 76-7, 81, 82, 83-4, 
86 

Smith, Sydney, 84 

Smith, Thomas, Vita Roberti 
Cottoni, 5, 6, 19, 28, 30, 31 

SocIETY FOR PROMOTING THE READ- 
ING AND SPEAKING OF THE ENG- 
LISH LANGUAGE IN SCOTLAND, 
85-6 

SocIETY FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT 
OF A LITERARY FUND, 139 n. 


183-4, 187, 


INDEX 


SOCIETY FOR THE PROMOTION oF 
HELLENIC STUDIES, 159 

SOCIETY FOR THE PROPAGATION OF 
CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE, 58 

SocieTY OF ANTIQUARIES, 36, 62-7, 
68-9, 71, 72, 73, 90-2, 119-21, 
131, 138 

SOCIETY OF FRIENDSHIP, 55 

SOCIETY OF THE ANTIQUARIES OF 
ScorLanpD, 78-80, 111 

SOCIETY OF THE DILETTANTI, 71 

SOCIETY OF THE DUODECIMOS, 216 

Solomon and Saturnus, Dialogue 
of, 155 

Somner, William, 18-9, 23-4, 25, 
63 

Southey, Robert, 140 

SPALDING CLUB, 111, 113, 114, 126 

SPALDING GENTLEMEN’S SOCIETY, 
68-71, 72 

Spedding, James, 175, 180 n. 

Speed, John, 15, 30 

Speght, Thomas, 16-8, 26, 45 n., 
48 n. 

Spelling reform movements, 152-4, 
206-7 

SPELLING REFORM ASSOCIATION, 
206 

Spelman, Sir Henry, 18-9, 22, 24, 
25, 26-7, 28, 29, 31, 35, 36, 38, 
48, 60, 63 

Spelman, Sir John, 25 

Spelman Lectureship, 18-9, 22-3, 
24 

Spencer, George John, Earl, 101, 
102 

Spenser, Edmund, 3, 47 n., 164-5 

SPENSER Society, 114, 163, 164-6, 
197 

Spielman, Marion Harry, 169 

Spingarn, Joel Elias, 46 n. 


243 


SPOTTISWOODE Society, 110, 128-9 

Sprat, Thomas, 40, 43, 44, 47 n.; 
History of the Royal Society, 42 

Stamford, A society at, 68, 71 

Stanhope, Philip Dormer, Earl of 
Chesterfield, 116 

Steevens, George, 89, 90 

Stephen, Sir Leslie, 180 n., 186, 196 

Stephens, Robert, 64 

Stephenson, Joseph, 104, 112, 125 

Sterne, Laurence, 93, 116 

Stevenson, Thomas G., 136 

Stevenson, William Henry, 12 n. 

Stewart, Dugald, 74, 82, 83 

Stjerna, Knut, 136 

Stokes, Whitley, 196 

Stow, John, 8, 11 n., 15-6, 17, 20n., 
26, 28, 29, 32, 35 

Strachey, William, 131 

Strangeman, James, 29 

Strype, John, Life and Acts of 
Parker, 8, 9,10 n., 11 n., 120m, 
21 

Stuart, Gilbert, 85 n. 

Stuart, John, 126, 127 

Stuart and Revett, Antiquities of 
Athens, 71 

Stubbes, Phillip, 174 

Stukeley, Joseph, 66-8 

Stiirzinger, J. J., 107 

Surrey, Earl of, see Howard 

Surtees, Robert, 121 

SURTEES SociETY, 119, 121-2, 123, 
129, 132 

Sweet, Henry, 149, 151, 153, 181, 
192-3 

Swift, Jonathan, 3, 40, 70 

Swinburne, Algernon Charles, 175- 
81 

Sykes, Sir Mark Masterman, 102 

Symons, Arthur, 187, 188 


244 


Talbot, Gilbert, Earl of Shrews- 
bury, 32 

Talbot, Thomas, 29, 32 

Talman, John, 62 

Tanner, Thomas, Bp., 61 

Tate, Francis, 30, 31, 32, 33 

Tatler, The, 69 

Taylor, Bayard, 215 

Taylor, Jeremy, 55 

Taylor, John, 165 

Tennyson, Alfred, Lord, 172 

Textual criticism, Elizabethan, 11 n. 

Thackeray, William Makepeace, 
213 

Theatre, Bibliographies of the: 
American, 214; English, 134; 
Scotch, 134 

Theatres in London, History of, 
135 

Thompson, Sir E. Maunde, 196 

Thoms, William John, 133 

Thomson, James (1700-48), 116 

Thomson, James (1834-82), 187 

Thomson, Thomas, 108, 110, 111, 
113, 127 

Thoreau, Henry David, 215, 216 

Thorkelin, Grimur Jénsson, 120 

Thornton Romances, 124 

Thorpe, Benjamin, 65, 120, 121, 
148, 155 

Thynne, Francis, 15, 16-8, 26, 29, 
32 

Thynne, William, 15, 45 n. 

Towneley Mysteries, 122 

Trench, Richard Chenevix, 148, 149 

Trivet, Nicholas, 126 

Turnbull, W.oB.D. D;/113 

Twysden, Sir Roger, 19, 24 

Tylor, Sir Edward Burnett, 133 

Tyndale, William, 127-8 

Tyrwhitt, Thomas, 45 n., 90, 91, 96 


INDEX 


Tytler, Alexander Fraser, 76-7, 
79-80 

Tytler, Patrick Fraser, 113 

Ulrici, Hermann, 181 

UNINCREASABLE CLUB, 90 

Urquhart, Sir Thomas, of Cro- 
marty, 113 

Urry, John, 45 n. 

Usher, James, Abp., 15, 24, 60 


Valence, Esq., 32-3 

Vercelli Book, 155 

Verstegen, Richard, 15 

VIKING CLUB, 136 

Villiers, George, First Duke of 
Buckingham, 37 

Volta, Alessandro, 93 


Wace, 91 

Walpole, Horace, 116 

Walsingham, Thomas, 10, 11 n. 

Wanley, Humphrey, 9, 21, 23, 36, 
61, 62-4, 66 

Warburton, John, 64 

Warburton, William, Bp., 81, 89 

Ward, Sir Adolphus William, 129, 
132, 165, 196 

Ward, John, 64 

Warner, George F., 196 

Warton, Joseph, 89 

Warton, Thomas, 89, 90, 91, 96 

WARTON CLUB, 143, 155-6, 202 

Waynflete, William, Bp., 130 

Wedgwood, Hensleigh, 148, 149-50 

Wedgwood, Josiah, 93 

Wegelin, Oscar, 214 

West, James, 66 

West Deeping, A society at, 68 

Westminster, Matthew of, 10 

Weston, Robert, 29, 30-1 

Weymouth, Richard F., 152 

Wheatley, Henry B., 149, 153 


INDEX 


Wheelocke, Abraham, 18-9, 22-3, 
24, 25, 60 4 

White, Robert M., 155 

Whitelock, Sir James, 29, 31 

Whitgift, John, Abp., 29-30, 127-8 

Whittier, John Greenleaf, 215 

Wiclif, John, 63 

WIcLIF Soclety, 161, 199 

Wilkins, John, Bp., 54 

Will’s Coffee-House, 73 

Williams, Roger, 216 

Winzet, Ninian, 192 

Wisbech, A society at, 68 

Wise, Thomas J., 187-8, 190, 194 

Wiseman, Thomas, 29 

Wither, George, 165, 213 

Woprow Society, 110, 111, 128 

Wood, Anthony a, 136 


245 


Worcester, A society at, 68 

Worcester, Florence of, 126 

Worde, Wynkin de, 213 

Wordsworth, William, 185-6, 210 

WoRDSWoORTH SociETy, 183-6, 202 

Wordsworthiana, 186 

Wotton, Sir Henry, 38, 143 

Wren, Sir Christopher, 52 

Wright, Joseph, 183, 196 

Wright, Thomas, 104, 123, 124, 
130, 141, 142, 143, 145, 156, 157 

Wright, William Aldis, 104, 181, 
182 

Wyntoun, Andrew of, 192 


Young, Patrick, 38 
YORKSHIRE DiALeEcT Society, 199 


ees eh | ede 
id ReMi hae § 


> 
ght asad, »' 


ite 


te ge er: a 


; ‘ om P y es 
Rag Pia.” % Fi Dem a 
\ a 


| Ave Pica ° 
{ irene i rao 4 
bh 
é Bad 5 
‘* = PW 
> 
| 
‘ ay i 
; 
ra 
t 
‘ 
' 
; 
OA 
ery tt, 
; a fr : 
; 
r 
7 - 
i ee 
; Aetna AY 5 
{ bie? } Mi 
i i 
¥ ‘ 
eV : 
} . j } j ed 
VV dda we tlhe 29 i Nee hid rR Pager i Le 
2 eS a teal colt) ogy aan | ek Pass i 
ite ice Wea a aN ah Pant 
Min aan ini 
‘¢ ita 
j eu be i Hi arr a 
at SLC Wy meri bi weer ¥ ny 
iinet ee fila wih ; img 
be iat Mees ee eo We 
Ce a Tere ed 
rue ih ty 


COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 


Columbia University in the City of New York 


The Press was incorporated June 8, 1893, to promote the publication 
of the results of original research. It is a private corporation, related di- 
rectly to Columbia University by the provisions that its Trustees shall be 
officers of the University and that the President of Columbia University 
shall be President of the Press. 


The publications of the Columbia University Press include works on 
Biography, History, Economics, Education, Philosophy, Linguistics, and 
Literature, and the following series : 

Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology. 

Columbia University Biological Series. 

Columbia University Studies in Cancer and Allied Subjects. 

Columbia University Studies in Classical Philology. 

Columbia University Studies in Comparative Literature. 

Columbia University Studies in English. 

Columbia University Geological Series. 

Columbia University Germanic Studies. 

Columbia University Indo-Iranian Series. 

Columbia University Contributions to Oriental History and 

Philology. 
Columbia University Oriental Studies. 
Columbia University Studies in Romance Philology and Liter- 


ature, 
Adams Lectures. Carpentier Lectures. 
Julius Beer Lectures. Hewitt Lectures. 
Blumenthal Lectures. Jesup Lectures. 


Catalogues will be sent free on application. 


LEMCKE & BUECHNER, Agents 
30-32 WEST a7th ST., NEW YORK 


COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 


STUDIES IN ENGLISH 

Joseph Glanvill. By Ferris GREENSLET, Ph.D. Cloth, 12mo, pp. xi + 235. 
Price, $1.50 net. 

The Elizabethan Lyric. By JoHN ErsKINE, Ph.D. Cloth, 12mo, pp.xvi+ 344. 
Price, $1.50 net. 

Classical Echoes in Tennyson. By Witrrep P. Mustarp, Ph.D. Cloth, 
I2mo, pp. xvi+ 164. Price, $1.25 net. 

Sir Walter Scott as a Critic of Literature. By Marcaret Batt, Ph.D. 
Paper, 8vo, pp. x + 188. Price, $1.00 net. 

The Early American Novel. By Litt1e Deminc LosueE, Ph.D. Paper, 8vo, 
pp. vii + 131. Price, $1.00 net. 

Studies in New England Transcendentalism. By Harotp C. Gopparp, 
Ph.D. Paper, 8vo, pp. x + 217. Price, $1.00 net. 

A Study of Shelley’s Drama “The Cenci”’ By Ernest SUTHERLAND 
BaTES, Ph.D. Paper, 8vo, pp. ix + 103. Price, $1.00 net. 

Verse Satire in England before the Renaissance. By SAMUEL Marion 
TucKER, Ph.D. Paper, 8vo, pp. xi+ 245. Price, $1.00 net. 


The Accusative with Infinitive and Some Kindred Constructions in 
English. By JAcop Ze1TLIn, Ph.D. Paper, 8vo, pp. xi+ 177. Price, 
$1.00 net. 

Government Regulation of the Elizabethan Drama. By VircIn1a Cro- 
CHERON GILDERSLEEVE, Ph.D. Cloth, 8vo, pp. vii+ 259. Price, $1.25 
net. 

The Stage History of Shakespeare’s King Richard the Third. By Attcz 
I. Perry Woop, Ph.D. Cloth, 8vo, pp. xi + 186. Price, $1.25 net. 


The Shaksperian Stage. By Victor E. Atsricut, Ph.D. Cloth, 8vo, pp. 
xii-+ 194. Illustrated. Price, $1.50 net. 


Thomas Carlyle as a Critic of Literature. By Freperick W. Roz, Ph.D. 
Cloth, 8vo, pp. xi-++ 152. Price, $1.25 net. 


Leigh Hunt’s Relations with Byron, Shelley and Keats. By Barnette 
MILLER, Ph.D. Cloth, 8vo, pp. vii + 169. Price, $1.25 net. 


The Authorship of Timon of Athens. By Ernest Hunter WricnuT, Ph.D. 
Cloth, 8vo, pp. ix + 104. Price, $1.25 net. 


English Tragicomedy, Its Origin and History. By Franx H. RIsTINz, 
Ph.D. Cloth, 8vo, pp. xv + 247. Price, $1.50 net. 


LEMCKE & BUECHNER, Agents ° 
30-32 West 27th Street New York 


COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 


John Dennis. His Life and Criticism. By Harry G. Paut, Ph.D. Cloth, 
8vo, pp. viii-+- 229. Portrait. Price, $1.25 net. 


The Rise of the Novel of Manners. By Cuartotre E, Morcan, Ph.D. 
Cloth, 8vo, pp. ix + 271. Price, $1.50 net. 


The Political Prophecy in England. By Rupert Taytor, Ph.D. Cloth, 
8vo, pp. xx + 165. Price, $1.25 net. 


The Middle English Penitential Lyric. By Franx Atrten Patterson, 
Ph.D. Cloth; 8vo, pp. ix + 203. Price, $1.50 net. 


The Soliloquies of Shakespeare. By Morris LeRoy Arnotp, Ph.D. 
Cloth, 8vo, pp. x + 177. Price, $1.25 net. 


The Exemplum in the Harly Religious and Didactic Literature of Eng- 
land. By JosrerH ALBEertT MosuHeEr, Ph.D. Cloth, 8vo, pp. xi-+ 150. 
Price, $1.25 net. 

New Poems by JamesI. of England. Edited by Attan F. Westcott, Ph.D. 
Cloth, 8vo, pp. xci+ 121. Price, $1.50 net. 


Thomas Dekker. A Study. By Mary Letanp Hunt, Ph.D. Cloth, 8vo, 
pp. xiii-++ 212. Price, $1.25 net. 

Mathew Carey. Editor, Author and Publisher. By Earrt L. BrapsueEr, 
Ph.D. Cloth, 8vo, pp. xi+ 144. Price, $1.25 net. 


(This series is continued under the title “ Studies in English and 
Comparative Literature ”’) 


STUDIES IN COMPARATIVE LITERATURE 


Romances of Roguery. By Frank WapLeIGH CHANDLER, Ph.D. Part I. 
The Picaresque Novel in Spain. Cloth, 1r2mo, pp. ix + 483. Price, 
$2.00 net. 


A History of Literary Criticism in the Renaissance. By Jorn Exias 
SPINGARN, Ph.D. Second edition, revised and augmented. Cloth, 
I2mo, pp. xi + 330. Price, $1.50 net. 


‘The Italian Renaissance in England. Studies. By Lewis Ernstein, Ph.D. 
Cloth, r2mo, pp. xvii+ 420. Illustrated. Price, $1.50 net. 


Platonism in English Poetry of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Cen- 
turies. By Joun SmitH Harrison, Ph.D. Cloth, 12mo, pp. xi + 235. 
Price, $2.00 net. 


LEMCKE & BUECHNER, Agents 
30-32 West 27th Street New York 


COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 


Irish Life in Irish Fiction. By Horatio SHrare Krans, Ph.D. Cloth, 
I2mo, pp. vii + 338. Price $1.50 net. 

The English Heroic Play. By Lewis NATHANIEL CHasE, Ph.D. Cloth, 
I2mo, pp. xii+ 250. Price, $2.00 net. 

The Oriental Tale in England in the Eighteenth Century. By MarrHa 
PIKE Conant, Ph.D. Cloth, 12mo, pp. xxvi-+ 312. Price, $2.00 net. 

The French Influence in English Literature. By Atrrep Horatio UpHam, 
Ph.D. Cloth, 12mo, pp. ix + 560. Price, $2.00 net. 

The Influence of Moliére on Restoration Comedy. By Duprey H. Mites, 
Ph.D. Cloth, 12mo, pp. xi-+ 272. Price, $1.50 net. 

The Greek Romances in Elizabethan Prose Fiction. By Samuet LEE 
WotrF, Ph.D. Cloth, 12mo, pp. ix + 529. Price, $2.00 net. 
(This series is continued under the title “ Studies in English and Com- 
parative Literature.’’) 


STUDIES IN ENGLISH AND COMPARATIVE LITERATURE 


(Continuation of “ Studies in English” and “ Studies in Comparative 
Literature.’’) 

Lord Byron as a Satirist in Verse. By CLaupE M. Fuess, Ph.D. Cloth, 
I2mo, pp. xi-+ 228. Price, $1.25 net. 

Spenser’s “ Shepherd’s Calender” in Relation to Contemporary Affairs. 
By JAMES Jackson Hiccinson, Ph.D. Cloth, 12mo, pp. xiii + 364. 
Price, $1.50 net. 

The Commedia dell’Arte. A Study in Italian Popular Comedy. By 
WINIFRED SMITH, Ph.D. Cloth, 12mo, pp. xv-+ 290. Illustrated. 
Price, $2.00 net. 

Literary Influences in Colonial Newspapers, 1704-1750. By ELizaBETH 
CHRISTINE Cook, Ph.D. Cloth, 12mo, pp. xi+ 2%9. Price, $1.50 net. 

Learned Societies and English Literary Scholarship in Great Britain and the 
United States. By Harrison Ross STEEVEs, Ph.D. Cloth, r2mo, pp. 
xiv + 245. Price, $1.50 net. : 

Gnomic Poetry in Anglo-Saxon. By BrancHE CoLtton WittiAms, Ph.D. 
Cloth, 12mo. Frontispiece. In press. ‘ 

Aaron Hill. Poet, Dramatist, Projector. By DorotHy Brewster, Ph.D. 
Cloth, r2mo. Portrait. In press. 

Chaucer and the Roman de la Rose. By Dean Spruit~ FANSLER, Ph.D. 
Cloth, 12mo. In press. 


LEMCKE & BUECHNER, Agents 
30-32 West 27th Street New York 


| thi i, ‘ 


Tj ey 
net 5 


pe 


' Lay 1 a 
i at er x Ay ™ re ‘ | 
7 i ay ¥y 


a ares f i aN me ey: 


a, 
t ] 


if 


Heep pets 


AP VN OLY EMER NOS VP TU HIN 


a Sue wes ay 


SPUN os aA ACLs oe A LLP daca id 


Oe ONT ae NLD yal Beery 


A ag 


BL ulate eaten 


RS bis WON TY 


UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA 


INA 


MTT 


3 0112 103638729 


